A Quality Management Review of Scotland’s

Sectoral Marine Plan for Tidal Energy

Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 18

S J Sangiuliano

© Crown Copyright 2016

A Quality Management Review of Scotland’s Sectoral Marine Plan for Tidal Energy

Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 18

Stephen J Sangiuliano

Published by Marine Scotland Science ISSN: 2043-772 DOI: 10.7489/1795-1

Marine Scotland is the directorate of the Scottish Government responsible for the

integrated management of Scotland’s seas. Marine Scotland Science (formerly

Fisheries Research Services) provides expert scientific and technical advice on

marine and fisheries issues. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science is a series of

reports that publishes results of research and monitoring carried out by Marine

Scotland Science. It also publishes the results of marine and freshwater scientific

work that has been carried out for Marine Scotland under external commission.

These reports are not subject to formal external peer-review.

This report presents the results of marine and freshwater scientific work carried out

by Marine Scotland Science. This report is in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for a Master of Environmental Studies (Planning) degree at the Faculty of

Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada for Stephen J Sangiuliano.

The work was supervised by Dr Ian M Davies (Marine Scotland Science).

1

A Quality Management Review of Scotland’s Sectoral Marine Plan for

Tidal Energy

Stephen J Sangiuliano

*Marine Scotland Science, Marine Laboratory

375 Victoria Road, AB11 9DB

**Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University

4700 Keele St, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada

Dr. Ian M Davies (Marine Scotland Science)

Abstract

As coastal communities continue to increase in geographical size and population,

associated marine economies will have to expand in unison. This relationship gives

rise to an increase in user – user and user – environment conflicts, as users of the

marine environment proliferate in size, number, and intensity. Such conflicts

demand the implementation in marine spatial planning (MSP) in order to effectively

manage various users and uses taking place within the marine environment.

Furthermore, negative implications arising from global climate change increasingly

threaten the integrity of ecosystem services within the marine environment, thereby

effecting natural marine ecosystem functions and the economies of coastal

communities relying upon such ecosystem services. Such a dilemma has increased

political support for the adoption of commercial-scale offshore renewable energy

implementation in order to assist in the global energy transition away from a carbon-

based economy. These drivers have triggered Scotland to construct and implement

the world’s first sectoral marine plan for tidal energy (SMPTE) in an effort to

streamline the licensing and permitting processes of tidal current turbines (TCTs),

subsequently facilitating the commercial-deployment of TCTs within a structured

governance framework. This paper undertakes a quality management review of

Scotland’s SMPTE against guidelines set out in the International Council for

Exploration of the Sea’s Marine Spatial Planning Quality Management System (ICES

MSP QMS). Conformity of the SMPTE to criterion set out in the ICES MSP QMS

document pertaining to the establishment of external and internal contexts, and risk

identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment, and monitoring and review are

ranked and gaps in quality management are analyzed in order to construct

recommendations for areas for further improvement.

2

1. Introduction

Historically, the seas adjoining coastal nations have acted as a resource conduit to

assist in the proliferation of the development and expansion of city states and

nations, as can be seen by some of the world’s largest empires such as Greece,

Rome, England, and France. The value that the seas provide to human settlements

remains a theme in modern societies, with 44% of the global population living within

150 km of the coast (UN Atlas of the Oceans, 2010). This trend is projected to rise

further in years to come due to ongoing rural-urban migration to megacities that

currently host 2.5 million inhabitants within the 150 km coastal buffer zone.

However, while traditional coastal activities such as fishing, shipping, dredging,

mineral extraction, and tourism have proved to be an economic stronghold for

coastal communities (Douvere & Ehler, 2009), the proliferation of coastal

populations, in conjunction with the estimated 382 existing and emerging uses of the

marine environment (Lester, Costello, Halpern, Gaines, White, & Barth, 2013) have

acted in a synergistic manner to compromise the ecosystem integrity of marine

environments over the last half century at a pace greater than any other in human

history (World Resource Institute, 2005). This dilemma is further exacerbated by the

rapid warming of the Earth’s climate due to the excessive combustion of fossil fuels

for the purpose energy provision. The combination of such regional user conflicts

and global ecosystem stressors have lead to scientific analysis suggesting that no

portion of the Earth’s oceans have escaped the influence of anthropogenic activities

(Halpern, Walbridge, Selkoe, Kappel, Micheli, D’Agrosa, Bruno, Casey, Ebert, Fox,

Fujita, Heinemann, Lenihan, Madin, Perry, Selig, Spalding, Steneck, Watson, 2008)

Such user – user conflicts (interactions amongst various users of the marine

environment) and user – environment conflicts (interactions between various users

of the marine environment with natural ecosystem properties) (Douvere, 2008)

arising from the proliferation of marine activities in size, number, and intensity

demand the application of marine spatial planning (MSP) as a means to effectively

manage the environmental, ecological, economic, and social implications associated

with their usage across time and space (Foley, Halpern, Micheli, Armsby, Caldwell,

Crain, Prahler, Rohr, Sivas, Beck, Carr, Crowder, Duffy, Hacker, McLeod, Palumbi,

Peterson, Regan, Ruckelshaus, Sandifer, & Steneck, 2010). Congruently, such

negative implications arising from global climate change have prompted a shift in

local, regional, provincial, national, continental, and international government policy

and legislation towards the implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) free renewable

energy. These two prerogatives become ever the more intimately intertwined when

examining the notion of tidal current energy development and implementation, as

such renewable energy technology essentially becomes another player in the usage

3

of finite and already stressed marine space.

Anticipating such conflicts in marine spatial usage, Scotland has become the first

and only nation to draft a sectoral marine plan for tidal energy (SMPTE) with the

intent of promoting the sustainable deployment of tidal current turbines (TCTs). The

SMPTE takes into consideration areas characterized by strong tidal energy

resources and the potential environmental, ecological, economic, and social

constraints associated with developing such areas, ultimately resulting in the

identification of ten commercial scale tidal energy sites. However, TCT deployment

currently resides in the pre-commercial stage (Myers, Keogh, & Bahaj, 2011), and,

therefore, while many scholars have advocated the deployment of TCTs based on

their suggested environmentally benign operational nature (Pelc & Fujita, 2002),

favorable long term economics (Fraenkel, 2006), and ideal location of

implementation on the seabed reducing public resistance generated from visual

and/or audio pollution (Fraenkel, 2002), tidal current energy has not yet been

extracted on a large commercial scale and thus such effects can not yet be

confirmed. Since the underlining function of MSP is to allocate portions of the three-

dimensional marine space to specified uses in order to achieve environmental,

ecological, economic, and social goals on a temporal continuum and in an adaptive

capacity (Ehler & Douvere, 2006), the shear infancy of a SMPTE must employ

effective quality management protocols adopted from best practice guidelines in

order to avoid adverse implications on a complex and sensitive marine environment

and associated economy.

This paper undertakes a quality management review of Scotland’s SMPTE against

guidelines set out in the most recent MSP quality assurance document published,

the International Council for Exploration of the Sea’s (ICES) Marine Spatial Planning

Quality Management System (Cormier, Kannen, Elliott, & Hall, 2015). Consistencies

between the SMPTE and the ICES criterion are identified and gaps in quality

management are analyzed in order to recommend areas for further improvement.

2. Tidal Energy and the Scottish Context

TCTs operate analogous to wind turbines via extracting the kinetic energy from the

lateral movements of tidal currents and converting the resulting mechanical energy

into electricity (O’Rourke, Boyle, & Reynolds, 2010). Because water is

approximately 800 times denser than air, TCTs can produce more output energy

than wind turbines for equal areas swept by the rotors (Kerr, 2007). Other

advantageous aspects of TCTs are their inherent reliability and predictability

resulting from the use of tidal movements as energy source, as tidal physics operate

4

on the unyielding principals of gravity enacted upon the Earth by the moon and sun,

thereby resulting in flood, ebb, and slack tides occurring within 24 hour, 48 minute

lunar days subsumed within 29.5 day lunar months (Tarbotton & Larson, 2006).

These principles allow nations with tidal current resource potential, where mean

spring tides have a flow velocity of 2m/s or more (Fraenkel, 2006), to model the

output of electricity to a power grid decades in advance, thereby easily

accommodating energy storage and overcoming intermittency issues that hinder the

ability of most renewable energy technologies to provide base load power.

Scotland’s national waters possess substantial tidal current resources, estimated at

32TWh/yr (Crown Estate, 2012), 25% of Europe’s tidal energy resource (Marine

Scotland, 2014). Subsequently, Scottish waters, industries, and government have

assumed a leading role in the development of tidal energy over the broad spectrum

of research, design, policy, and regulation. Scottish waters have hosted four key

stages along the timeline of tidal energy development. The first recorded attempt at

harnessing energy from tidal currents took place in the early 1990s at Loch Linnhe,

in the Western Scottish Highlands (Esteban & Leary, 2012). Although progress has

continued since then, most research and development (R&D) has been focused on

emulating sea conditions in test tanks, downscaled real sea prototype testing, and

individual commercial scale testing. Much of this R&D has taken place at specifically

tailored marine energy test centers, the first and largest of which is the European

Marine Energy Centre (EMEC), located in the Orkney Islands, north Scotland, which

has been operational since May of 2005 and hosts eight grid connected berths for

TCTs (EMEC, 2016).

While commercial scale deployment of TCTs has yet to be realized (Johnson, Kerr,

& Side, 2012), Scotland is taking another industry-leading step with the first phase of

the MeyGen project, located in the Pentland Firth, being scheduled for

implementation this summer, 2016 (MeyGen, 2016). Four 1MW TCTs will be

deployed, marking the first commercial array deployed in the world, and monitored

rigorously to inform a plethora of real-time issues of speculation including marine

species interactions, hydrology alteration, benthic habitat impacts, and inter-turbine

effects. The project aims at ultimately deploying 398MW of installed capacity by the

early 2020s. The MeyGen project was awarded a seabed lease by the Crown Estate

in 2010 on an ad hoc basis in order implement the project plan. Since then, Marine

Scotland (MS) has taken a more strategic approach to promote the sustainable

deployment of TCTs by becoming the first and only nation to develop a SMPTE

(Marine Scotland, 2013a), thereby marking the most recent leadership initiative

undertaken by Scotland in the tidal energy industry.

5

Figure 1: Atlantis Resources Corporation AK-1000 tidal current turbine set to be deployed for the MeyGen project at the Pentland Firth (EMEC, 2011).

6

Figure 2: Scotland’s SMP framework

7

3. Scotland’s SMPTE

3.1. Legislative and Policy Framework

Scotland’s SMPTE was first drafted in July 2013 from the earlier plan for the Saltire

Prize (Marine Scotland, 2014), as powers to plan for the UK’s exclusive economic

zone (EEZ) between 12-200 nm out from Scotland’s coasts were devolved from the

UK Government to the Scottish Government (SG) in 2010, thereby empowering

Scottish Parliament with planning authority over both their territorial waters zone (TZ,

0-12 nm) and EEZ (Marine Scotland, 2014). However, while plans for both the TZ

and EEZ are uniform and published under Scotland’s national marine plan (NMP),

the authority to plan and manage development within the TZ and EEZ is derived

from different legislation, with the TZ legislated by the Marine Scotland Act 2010 and

the EEZ legislated by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

The SMPTE was constructed with the strategic aims of identifying preferred

development areas for tidal energy implementation in Scotland, facilitating enhanced

economic development, investment, and employment, and minimizing adverse

implication on people, other sectors, and the environment (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

The four key drivers that prompted the development of the SMPTE include:

Climate change and energy: to assist the SG in achieving GHG emissions

reduction targets of 42% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990

levels by 2050, as stated in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2010.

Furthermore, to assist the SG in achieving its commitment of providing 30% of

it’s energy demand from renewables by 2020, with an interim embedded

target of 100% renewably generated electricity.

Marine planning: to inform the national and future regional marine plans with

regards to the strategic siting of TCTs.

Marine licensing: to streamline the licensing and consenting process of TCT

testing and development.

Transition to a low carbon economy: to exploit Scotland’s tidal current

resource in a sustainable manner in order to position Scotland as a world

leader in the low carbon economy transition in the resulting four decades.

8

3.2. SMPTE Process

The following provides a broad overview of Scotland’s SMPTE process (see Figure

2. for reference):

3.2.1. Scoping – Areas of Search

The initial scoping stage employs the Crown Estate’s spatial modeling tool MaRS in

order to determine the most suitable sites for tidal energy development based on the

presence of substantial tidal energy resources in relation to a series of constraints

including fishing, aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, Natura sites, recreational areas,

potential archeological sites, and visual/landscape considerations (Davies, Gubbins,

& Watret, 2012). The scoping stage was undertaken as a purely scientific and

technical planning exercise informed by experts within MS, as no stakeholder input

was employed at this preliminary stage of the SMPTE process.

3.2.2. Draft Initial Plan Framework

The results produced from the scoping study are used to inform draft initial plan

framework, which essentially begins the transition towards building the planning

process of the most suitable tidal energy sites (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

3.2.3. Draft Regional Locational Guidance (RLG)

At this stage, RLG becomes a part of the SMPTE process and remains persistent

throughout until project licensing for adopted plan options. RLG contributes to the

SMPTE process by providing direction to developers on the level of constraint

pertaining to suitable tidal energy sites within the SMPTE by analyzing detailed

considerations concerning technical, environmental, socio-economic, and planning

factors.

3.2.4. Pre-Statutory Consultation

This is the first stage where stakeholder consultation becomes a part of the planning

process, as workshops are used to engage relevant sectors and communities and

events are held to disseminate information pertaining to the SMPTE process. After

becoming familiarized with the planning process, relevant stakeholders are then

given the chance to provide insight into the continual development of the SMPTE via

their contribution of specific local and sectoral knowledge.

9

3.2.5. Pre-Statutory Consultation Analysis Report

At this stage, MS will release a report on the key findings identified through

stakeholder input obtained from the pre-statutory consultation process.

3.2.6. Initial Plan Framework (IPF)

At this stage, information from the RLG and key themes addressed in the pre-

statutory consultation analysis report are employed to refine the identified suitable

sites for tidal energy development last modified in the draft initial plan framework into

draft plan options. The plan options documented in the IPF are then put forward to

Scottish Ministers in order to obtain approval and subsequently commence the

formal planning process.

3.2.7. Sustainability Appraisal

In compliance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the UK

Marine Policy Statement, a sustainability appraisal is undertaken in order to inform

the development of the formal SMPTE. The sustainability appraisal investigates the

potential environmental, ecological, cultural, and socio-economic spatial conflicts and

compatibilities specific to each site identified as a plan option in the IPF. The

sustainability appraisal contains the following:

3.2.7.1. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

The SEA identifies key environmental receptors that are likely to display degrees of

sensitivity resulting from stressors produced from tidal energy developments, as well

as quantifying potential impacts and exploring potential mitigation measures. The

results of the SEA are then used as a basis to inform detailed site specific

environmental assessments (EAs) for both strategic review at a regional scale and

individual project developments as applicable (Marine Scotland, 2015c).

10

3.2.7.2. Socio-economic assessment

A socio-economic assessment is undertaken to identify how project developments

within plan options will interact, whether positively or negatively, with existing marine

spatial uses already in place in the region being assessed. The socio-economic

assessment establishes a framework for measuring, both quantitatively and

qualitatively, the user – user conflicts and user – environment conflicts that tidal

energy development will have on a community in economic and social contexts. The

assessment then offers judgment into the degree of such impacts and whether they

are deemed acceptable or not (Marine Scotland, 2015a).

3.2.7.3. Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA)

The HRA identifies spatial conflicts between tidal energy developments in purposed

plan option area with areas designated either currently, or have the potential to be

designated in the future as special areas of conservation (SACs) under the Habitats

Directive and special protection areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive, as specified

under the EU-wide biological conservation legislation Natura 2000. If effects on a

Natura site are determined to be plausible then plan alterations will be made (Marine

Scotland, 2015b).

3.2.8. Sustainability Appraisal Report

Drawing upon key findings produced from the SEA, socio-economic assessment,

and HRA, a sustainability appraisal report is published and subject to consultation

with relevant sectoral and community stakeholders for a minimum period of 16

weeks (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

3.2.9. Draft Plans

Drawing upon key findings produced from the SEA, socio-economic assessment,

and HRA presented in the sustainability appraisal report, in conjunction with

knowledge obtained from RLG, formal draft plans are developed. Draft plans are

subject to consultation with relevant sectoral and community stakeholders for a

minimum period of 16 weeks.

11

3.2.10. Statutory Consultation

In conformity with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, the draft plan,

SEA report, and HRA must undergo statutory consultation. The consultation

authorities for the SEA report are Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish

Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), Historic Scotland (HS), and the Joint

Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). The consultation authority for the HRA

report is SNH.

3.2.11. Consultation Analysis Report

At this stage a consultation analysis report is drafted with the intention of ensuring

that the key issues raised by relevant sectoral and community stakeholders have

been taken into account throughout the sustainability appraisal report and draft plans

in order to inform the final draft plan. In conformity with the Environmental

Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, if statutory consultation determines that

considerable alterations to the draft plan are required, further research and

amendments must be made beginning from the SEA, socio-economic assessment,

and HRA onward to this stage.

3.2.12. Final Draft Plans

Beginning from the SEA, socio-economic assessment, and HRA onward to the

consultation analysis report, pertinent information identified and consolidated inform

the development of the final draft plan. The final draft plan presents recommended

areas suitable for commercial scale (30MW>) tidal energy development.

3.2.13. Scottish Ministers’ Approval

The final draft plan is put forward for Scottish Ministers’ for confirmation to adopt or

reject the SMPTE.

3.2.14. Adopted Sectoral Plan

If the plan is adopted, demonstrating compliance with various EU Directives

pertaining to MSP, including the SEA Directive, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), Birds

Directive (2009/147/EC), MSP Directive, and the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive (MSFD), the final plan is produced and plan options contained within the

SMPTE are formally accepted.

12

3.2.15. Post-Adoption Statement

In conformity with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, when a final

plan is adopted a post-adoption statement justifying why the plan was adopted and

how environmental and stakeholder concerns, the socio-economic assessment and

HRA were taken into consideration must be published.

3.2.16. Project Licensing for Adopted Plan Options

Although plan options identified in the SMPTE are chosen due to their overall

resource, environmental, economic, and social suitability to host commercial scale

tidal energy project developments, given the complexity of the marine environment in

conjunction with the distinct risks associated with different project developments,

there is no guarantee that a project within a plan option area will receive consent to

obtain a license. If deemed necessary, commercial developments will be required to

undertake project-level assessments that take into account issues raised during plan

adoption, SEA, socio-economic assessment, and HRA during screening and scoping

stages for environmental impact assessments (EIAs).

3.2.17. Plan Review Process

It is suggested within the SMPTE that a sectoral plans review group (SPRG) be

established in order to oversee the implementation of SMPTE and undertake

strategic monitoring and research to fill information gaps identified in the

sustainability appraisal report.

13

Figure 3:SMPTE final plan option areas.

14

4. ICES MSP Quality Management System (QMS)

4.1. QMS

Anthropogenic uses of the marine environment are increasing in number, spatial

scale, and intensity, and have thus conjured up the necessity for government bodies

ranging from local to national to devise policy tools in order to maintain ecosystem

services that are essential to the health of the marine environment and coastal

economies (Cormier et al., 2015). For example, the North Sea is home to some of

the busiest marine transport activity in the world, while new uses of marine space

such as aquaculture and offshore renewable energy are picking up momentum

(OSPAR, 2010). Furthermore, in 2012 Europe’s Blue Economy supported 5.4 million

jobs, producing €500 billion (EU, 2012). Taking this into consideration, compounded

by the adverse implications arising from the declining integrity of the marine

environment and associated economies resulting from climate change, marine-

based industries and governments are beginning to advocate for the implementation

of MSP as a means of balancing economic interests and ecological considerations

(Cormier et al., 2015).

In February 2010, ICES (2012) held a Workshop on Quality Management of MSP

Processes (WKQAMSP). Key findings of the workshop revealed that the

overwhelming majority of QMSs linked to MSPs were implemented on an ad hoc

basis throughout the entire planning process, including data collection and

dissemination, policy advisory, stakeholder consultation, conformity auditing, and

policy development and implementation. This in turn led to the development of MSP

processes that lacked a solid QMS that could ensure buy-in from relevant sectoral

and community stakeholders. The aim of ICES’s Marine Spatial Planning Quality

Management System document is to put forward a uniform MSP QMS structure to

enable the standardization of best practices towards MSP processes (Cormier et al.,

2015), thereby providing confidence to internal and external stakeholders that the

output of the plan fulfills the objectives established at the onset of the MSP process

(Hoyle, 2011). Best practices examined entail that MSP and QMS frameworks draw

upon four key elements:

Defining stressors and identifying appropriate management measures of such

stressors.

Constructing risk assessment and risk management measures.

Defining stakeholders, identifying stakeholder interactions, and ascertaining

the vertical stratification of multilateral government institutions.

15

Identifying ecosystem services, the societal benefits of such services, and

adopting an ecosystem approach to management.

In order to apply these four key elements of best MSP practices to the construction

of a QMS framework, the ICES document draws upon the works of figureheads

within the MSP field to integrate themes of MSP processes (Ehler & Douvere, 2009;

Schultz-Zehden, Gee, & Scibior, 2008), ecosystem management systems (Sardà,

Diedrich, Tintoré, Pablo Lozoya, Cormier, Hardy, & Ouellette, 2010; Sardà,

O'Higgins, Cormier, Diedrich, & Tintoré, 2014), ecosystem approaches to

management (Rice, Trujillo, Jennings, Hylland, Hagstrom, Astudillo, & Nørrevang-

Jensen, 2005), and ecosystem risk management (Cormier, Kannen, Elliott, Hall,

Davies, 2013). While all of the elements and themes listed above can inform the

development of a MSP QMS, none of works of MSP field figureheads were written

from a quality management perspective, thus ICES sought to fill the void through the

creation of their MSP QMS best practice document (Cormier et al., 2015). In

addition to the guiding elements, themes, and documents listed above, the ICES

document draws upon ISO 9000 (ISO, 2005) quality systems suite of standards in

order to construct its QMS and the ISO 31000 (ISO 2009) risk management

standards in order to manage interrelated processes within the overall MSP

framework.

Table 1 ICES MSP QMS document structure

ICES Document Structure Acronym Literature Drawn Upon

Quality Management System QMS Cormier et al., 2013; Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Rice et al., 2005; Sardà et al., 2010; Sardà et al., 2014; Schultz-Zehden et al., 2008

Quality Management Programme QMP ISO, 2005; ISO, 2009

Quality Objectives of the Plan QOP Elliott, 2013

Quality Management Objectives QMO Hoyle, 2011

In order to properly implement an effective, transparent QMS for MSP, a quality

management programme (QMP) with an itinerary that specifies required inputs and

targeted outputs, quality objectives of the plan (QOP) that document the desired

outcome of the end product, and quality management objectives (QMO) that deal

with interrelated processes are all essential components (Cormier et al., 2015).

16

4.2. QMP

A QMP structures the sequence of activities in order to determine how the MSP will

establish its “scope and objectives, identify issues or conflicts, evaluate management

options, develop and implement the plan, monitor and review the plan, in addition to

establishing who is part of the governance structure, who makes decisions, who will

be consulted and provide advice, and how information is managed”. A QMP must be

comprised of four compulsory elements in order to achieve its purpose, notably:

Mandate and commitment: by a government institution headed by a

Competent Authority (CA) in order to maintain political, sectoral, and

community engagement throughout the MSP process.

Communication and consultation: from both statutory and non-statutory actors

in order to develop a knowledge base of potential risks and search for

methods to manage, and if necessary, mitigate such risks.

Information and record management requirements: in order to demonstrate

the methodology behind management decisions within the MSP process and

prove conformity with criteria set out in the QMS.

Evaluations and performance assessments: in order to assess the

performance of the MSP and the conformity of objectives with overarching

policy goals within the MSP as determined by the applicable political

framework.

4.3. QMO

QMOs are “principles upon which the conduct of governance, consultation, advisory,

and decision-making will ensure that the process remains within the scope,

objectives, and outcomes established at the onset of the planning initiative, that the

steps and outputs of the planning process are relevant to achieving the plan, and

that the plan addresses the quality assurance elements outlined by the QOPs”.

QMOs are essentially the quality objectives for the MSP as a process in and of itself.

The ICES MSP QMS document draws from Hoyle’s (2011) seven process principals

to establish the QMO framework, consisting of:

P1 – Consistency of purpose: between the purpose of the MSPs outputs and

QMOs in order to allows for outputs to be informed by CAs and sectoral and

community stakeholders.

P2 – Clarity of purpose: quantifiable objectives with defined outputs

throughout each step of the MSP process, thereby allowing those involved in

17

the process to understand their roles, the MSPs purpose, and how

performance will be measured.

P3 – Connectivity with objectives: activities undertaken in the MSP process

justify the ability of the MSP to achieve it’s QMOs, and subsequently ensure

that those involved in the MSP are working towards achieving the QMOs

P4 – Competence and capability: of those involved in the MSP process to

ensure that roles are properly assigned and individual inputs hold weight.

P5 – Certainty of results: are enhanced if performance indicators and

stipulated periodic reporting are a part of the MSP process, thereby allowing

those involved in the MSP process, both internally and externally, to

comprehend the performance and progress of the MSP process.

P6 – Conformity to best practices: to ensure that the MSP process is

structured off of past success, thereby providing confidence in it’s

effectiveness and efficiency.

P7 – Clear line of sight: undertaking periodic reporting to insure CAs and

sectoral and community stakeholders are can identify the connectivity

between their expectations and the QOPs, thereby providing a better

understanding of the MSP process and facilitating the continual improvement

of the MSP process over time.

4.4. QOP

QOPs are a “comprehensive list of the quality assurance elements that should be

addressed by the plan in terms of legislation, policies, governance, cultural, social,

economic, and technological considerations in its management strategies”. QOPs

provide a framework for what the MSP process should achieve. The ICES MSP

QMS document draws from Elliot’s (2013) Ten Tenets to establish the QOP

framework, consisting of:

T1 – Environmentally/ecologically sustainable: enacting measures to ensure

that ecosystem services are sustained.

T2 – Technologically feasible: tools required to sustain ecosystem services

are readily available.

T3 – Economically viable: cost-benefit analysis of sustaining ecosystem

services demonstrates viability.

T4 – Socially desirable/tolerable: management processes are understood and

tolerated by society and result in societal benefit.

T5 – Legally permissible: policy and legislation are in place to enact and/or

enforce management measures.

18

T6 – Administratively achievable: statutory bodies are in place to ensure

sustainable management.

T7 – Politically exponent: management measures are in conformance with

prevailing policy and obtain support from political leaders.

T8 – Ethically defensible: ensuring that management measures that allow for

some degree of environmental deterioration can be justified.

T9 – Culturally inclusive: cultural ecosystem values are incorporated into

management measures.

T10 – Effectively communicable: management measures are understood by

all stakeholders in relation to the nine other tenets.

5. SMPTE Quality Review Against ICES MSP QMS Quality

Management Checklist

The development and implementation of TCTs exemplifies an intriguing cross

section between the issues concerning climate change and marine spatial usage, as

TCTs are an upcoming emissions-free renewable energy technology that ultimately

becomes another user of marine space that is already stressed and generally lacking

strategic coordination across the globe. While Scotland is renowned for its tidal

current resources, estimated at approximately 32TWh/yr of available resource

(Crown Estate, 2012), the North Sea is also one of the busiest marine regions in the

world (OSPAR, 2010). In light of such a dilemma, the SG has delegated MS to draft

a SMPTE in order to promote the sustainable development and implementation of

TCTs while giving due consideration to other marine spatial uses currently in

existence as well as potential interactions with marine ecosystems (Marine Scotland,

2013a).

However, due to the SMPTE’s status as the first MSP of it’s kind, in conjunction with

the infancy of commercial TCT deployment and the sensitivity of the marine

environment, it is important that Scotland’s SMPTE be constructed and updated with

an effective QMS. This paper aims to assess the conformity of Scotland’s SMPTE

with a QMS framework by undertaking a quality review of Scotland’s SMPTE against

criteria set out in the ICES MSP QMS document. In accordance with ISO 3100 risk

management standards, the ICES MSP QMS structures its quality review by first

establishing external and internal contexts in order to ensure that risk identification,

risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk treatment, and monitoring and review are

intrinsically linked to support the goals and objectives set out at the beginning of the

MSP process (Cormier et al., 2015). Since the ICES MSP QMS has structured the

QMOs within the document to guide any MSP, whether economically,

environmentally, or socially oriented, it provides a perfect framework for the SMPTE

19

to be analyzed against. The SMPTE will be assessed against the 178 questions

provided in the ICES MSP QMS quality management checklist (QMC). The

assessment process will be informed by the SMPTE, the detailed supporting

documents published to inform the SMPTE construction and adoption process,

Scotland’s NMP, the detailed supporting documents published to inform the NMP

construction and adoption process, and interviews with internal members of the SG

where information on the SMPTE is not published.

The QMCs are drafted from subtopics under the internal, external, and risk

identification, analysis, evaluation, and treatment, and monitoring and review

framework sections listed above (e.g. 5.2. Establishing the MSP internal context:

5.2.1. Marine Planning Legislation, Policies and Authorities). Within each subtopic,

headings are organized under one of four themes to denote the context in which the

subtopic should be interpreted as:

External Organization: competent authorities, industry stakeholders,

communities of interest or the public.

Internal Organization: organizations supporting the MSP process such as

scientific, technical or policy advisory bodies.

Function: function lead by the Competent Authority or the Governance group

Inputs or Outputs: metric in relation to a completed task such as a result of a

procedure or a process.

Where subtopics provide more than one heading, the headings are titled, and the

themes are specified for each heading (5.2.1. Marine Planning Legislation, Policies

and Authorities: Marine planning legislation and policies – Inputs or outputs, MSP

competent authority - Function), which are meant to be interpreted independent from

one another rather than in a conjunctive manner. Subtopics are then categorized as

either a QMO, with the specific process principal (Hoyle, 2011) referred to denoted

adjacent (e.g. 5.1.2. Marine development public policy agenda: QMO = P1 -

Consistency of purpose), or a QOP, with the specific tenet (Elliot, 2013) referred to

denoted adjacent (e.g. 5.1.2. Marine development public policy agenda: QMO = T7 -

Politically exponent). The remaining sections and subsections within section 5.

SMPTE quality review against ICES MSP QMS QMC detail the subtopics, themes,

and associated principals and tenets, and how the SMPTE addresses or does not

address such criteria set out in the QMC.

5.1. Establishing the External Context

20

In order to devise a successful MSP process, the external context consisting of

cultural, social, political, legal, regulatory, financial, technological, economic, and

environmental factors that may influence the ability of the MSP to achieve its

objectives must be taken into consideration (Cormier et al., 2015).

5.1.1. Public Policy Governance

External

o QMO = P1

o QOP = T7

5.1.2. Marine Development Public Policy Agenda

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P1

o QOP = T7

1) What is the marine development public policy agenda that would trigger or

support the need to initiate a planning process?

In relation to the SMPTE’s strategic aims of maximizing the aggregate installed

capacity of tidal energy in Scotland, facilitating enhanced economic development,

investment, and employment, and minimizing adverse implications on people, other

sectors, and the environment (Marine Scotland, 2013a), the public policy that would

trigger or support the need to initiate the SMPTE process is the SG’s Economic

Strategy, the Electricity Generation Policy Statement, and the Climate Change

(Scotland) Act 2010, which work together to promote economic development while

safeguarding the environment by meeting GHG emissions reduction targets via the

generation of electricity from renewable energy technologies.

2) What are the strategic goals, socio-economic targets and completion

timeframes for the proposed planning process?

The strategic goals of the SMPTE are to maximize the aggregate installed capacity

of tidal energy in Scotland, facilitate enhanced economic development, investment,

and employment, and minimize adverse implications on people, other sectors, and

the environment, with the later two being representative of the economic and social

targets, respectively (Marine Scotland, 2013a). The SMPTE process did not follow a

strict completion timeframe, rather, a defined number of steps were undertaken to

construct the SMPTE in chronological order in conformity with the sectoral marine

planning (SMP) process illustrated in Figure 2.

21

3) What are the goals, objectives and timeframes of the industry stakeholders

and communities of interest in relation to the planning area?

The goals and objectives of industry and community stakeholders are not formally

published as definitive targets, as the SMPTE takes a strategic approach towards

planning. The SMPTE takes into consideration that planning is an ongoing process

and monitoring and review may reveal new knowledge that may result in a change in

industry and community stakeholder goals and objectives, as may the introduction of

new scientific data and the advent of new technology. Therefore, the SMPTE allows

for ongoing industry and community input throughout the planning process.

5.1.3. Ecosystem Protection Public Policy Agenda

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P1

o QOP = T7

4) What is the public policy agenda that sets ecosystem sustainability goals and

timeframes for the implementation of protection and conservation measures?

The Birds Directive and Habitats Directive together form the EU-wide biological

conservation legislation Natura 2000, designating Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) respectively. Such sites were taken into

consideration when scoping for suitable tidal energy development sites for the

SMPTE in order to safeguard the sensitive marine ecosystems and features while

achieving the SMPTE’s strategic aim of identifying preferred development areas for

tidal energy developments in Scotland, facilitating enhanced economic development,

investment, and employment, and minimizing adverse implications on people, other

sectors, and the environment (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Furthermore, the

Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, which provides for the requirement

of SEA to identify key environmental receptors, quantifying potential impacts, and

exploring potential mitigation measures, and the UK Marine Policy Statement, which

provides the requirement of incorporating the results of SEA in a sustainability

appraisal, work in conjunction to implement protection and conservation measures

stipulated under Natura 2000.

5) What are the ecosystem management outcome indicators and targets to be

achieved?

The SMPTE identifies broad ecosystem indictors, including biodiversity and seabed

and coastal processes distinct to each of the three regions where suitable tidal

energy development sites have been allocated (North, West, South West).

22

However, although the SEA for SMPTE has been undertaken in compliance with the

Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, which in and of itself sites an

abundance of applicable plans, programmes, and strategies quantifying ecosystem

protection measures such as unacceptable fish stock depletion targets (EU

Biodiversity Strategy, 2011), and must be in compliance with the Birds and Habitats

Directives, consideration of ecosystem management outcomes and targets for the

SMPTE itself have not been explicitly defined (Marine Scotland, 2015c).

6) What are the boundaries of the ecosystem?

The SMPTE is divided into six regions; North, North East, East, South West, West,

North West. These regions extend to the outer boundary of the 200nm EEZ and do

not explicitly take into consideration ecosystem boundaries in their construction

(Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.2. Establishing the MSP Internal Context

In order to devise a successful MSP process, the external context consisting of

governance, organizational structure, roles and accountabilities, and human and

financial resources, that may influence the ability of the MSP to achieve its objectives

must be taken into consideration (Cormier et al., 2015). The ICES MSP QMS

establishes terms of references, business rules, communication and consultation

procedures, auditing framework, and scientific and technical advisory protocols.

5.2.1. Marine Planning Legislation, Policies and Authorities

Marine planning legislation and policies:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T5

MSP competent authority:

Function

o QMO = P3

o QOP = T5

7) What is the marine spatial planning legislative and policy framework that sets

the scope of the planning initiative?

The Scottish NMP, bounded by the Marine Scotland Act 2010 within the TZ and the

23

Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 within the EEZ sets the scope for the SMPTE.

8) What are the agreements and/or statutes needed to develop and implement a

marine spatial plan?

The Marine Scotland Act 2010, which provides the legislative and management

framework for the marine environment, and the Marine and Coastal Access Act

2009, which provides the legislative and management framework for MSP within

Scottish waters, are the statutes required to develop and implement the SMPTE as

the SMPTE is to be in conformity within the broader context of the NMP (Marine

Scotland, 2013a).

9) What are the local or regional statutes or international agreements that have

to be respected within boundaries of the management area being planned?

The statutes and agreements that have to be respected within the management

boundaries of the SMPTE include the Marine Scotland Act 2010, Marine and Coastal

Access Act 2009, Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, UK Marine Policy

Statement, Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Habitats Regulations, etc. (Marine

Scotland, 2014). This list is not exhaustive, as there are many local and regional

statutes and international agreements that have to be respected within boundaries of

the management area, rather, this list provides an outlook at the primary policy tools

directly associated with the construction, implementation, and management of the

SMPTE. The SMPTE must abide by an extensive list of local and regional statutes

and international agreements across sectors in order to achieve its strategic aims of

identifying preferred development areas for tidal energy implementation in Scotland,

facilitating enhanced economic development, investment, and employment, and

minimizing adverse implication on people, other sectors, and the environment.

These statutes and agreements have been taken into consideration in the scoping

stage for suitable tidal energy development sites.

10) Who is the MSP Competent Authority that is delegated under the MSP

legislation or under agreement from the governance structure?

MS is the MSP CA designated under the Marine Scotland Act 2010 (Marine

Scotland, 2013a).

11) What is the span of responsibility and accountability of the MSP Competent

Authority?

24

MS is responsible and accountable for determining the suitability of tidal energy

development sites within Scottish waters, drafting the SMPTE, issuing permits,

granting consent, engaging stakeholders, enforcing management measures, and

monitoring and review of the SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.2.2. Ecosystem Legislation, Policies and Authorities

Ecosystem legislation and policies:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T5

Ecosystem competent authority:

Function

o QMO = P3

o QOP = T5

12) What is the ecosystem legislative and policy framework that sets the

ecological context or constraints for the planning initiative?

The ecosystem legislative and policy framework that sets the ecological context or

constraints for the SMPTE include the Marine Scotland Act 2010, Environmental

Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, UK Marine Policy Statement, Birds Directive,

Habitats Directive, Habitats Regulations, etc. (Marine Scotland, 2014). This list is

not exhaustive, as there is an abundance of ecosystem legislative and policy

framework that sets the ecological context and constraints of the SMPTE. This

legislative and policy framework has been taken into consideration in the scoping

stage for suitable tidal energy development sites.

13) What are the prohibitions, protection or conservation regulation that have to

be met by planning process within the management area?

The prohibitions, protection or conservation regulation that have to be met by

planning process within the SMPTE management area include, but are not limited to,

the Marine Scotland Act 2010, Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Environmental

Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, UK Marine Policy Statement, Birds Directive,

Habitats Directive, Habitats Regulations, etc. (Marine Scotland, 2014).

14) What are the local or regional statutes or international agreements that have

to be respected within the boundaries of the ecosystem?

25

The statutes and agreements that have to be respected within the ecosystem

boundaries that fall within the SMPTE management area include the Marine

Scotland Act 2010, Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Environmental

Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, UK Marine Policy Statement, Birds Directive,

Habitats Directive, Habitats Regulations, etc. (Marine Scotland, 2014). This list is

not exhaustive, as there are many local and regional statutes and international

agreements that have to be respected within boundaries of the management area,

rather, this list provides an outlook at the primary policy tools directly associated with

the construction, implementation, and management of the SMPTE. The SMPTE

must abide by an extensive list of local and regional statutes and international

agreements across sectors in order to achieve its strategic aim of minimizing

adverse implication on the environment while obtaining economic and development

goals. These statutes and agreements have been taken into consideration in the

scoping stage for suitable tidal energy development sites.

15) Who is the Ecosystem Competent Authority that is delegated under the

ecosystem legislative or under agreement from the governance structure?

MS is both the MSP and ecosystem CA designated under the Marine Scotland Act

2010 (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

16) What is the span of responsibility and accountability of the Ecosystem

Competent Authority?

MS is responsible and accountable for determining the suitability of tidal energy

development sites within Scottish in relation to their potential interactions with SACs

and SPAs, undertaking SEAs and HRAs, issuing permits and granting consent to

project leases that are in compliance with ecological prohibitions, protection or

conservation regulations and local and regional statutes and international

agreements, enforcing ecosystem management measures, and monitoring and

review of ecosystem conditions within the SMPTE management area (Marine

Scotland, 2013a).

5.2.3. Competent Authorities

External

o QMO = P4

o QOP = T5, T6

26

17) What are the other competent authorities that have legislative mandates

related to the activities of the drivers operating in the management area and

that will be managed by the marine spatial plan?

MS is the only CA for the SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

18) Are there any relevant industry agreements/statutes involving external or

international organizations that should be included in the planning process?

There are numerous relevant industry agreements/statutes involving external or

international organizations that should be included in the SMPTE process, all of

which are listed throughout the NMP, SEA Directive, Marine Scotland Act 2010, and

the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Marine Scotland, 2014).

5.2.4. Industry stakeholders

External

o QMO = P4

o QOP = T2

19) Who are the industry associations or organizations that represent the drivers

that are operating in the management area and that will be managed by the

marine spatial plan?

Key industry associations and organizations that represent drivers operating in the

management area of the SMPTE specified in the SMPTE are categorized under

fishing, shipping and navigation, grid, industry, and tourism and recreation. For a

complete list of key industry associations and organizations refer to the SMPTE

document (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

20) Under what legislation and policy framework are the implicated industry

sectors managed?

Under the policy framework of the NMP, which draws its legitimacy from the Marine

Scotland Act 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, early and ongoing

engagement with stakeholders should be undertaken in the SMPTE process (Marine

Scotland, 2013a). The SMPTE has allowed for stakeholder engagement with the

IPF, SEA, socio-economic assessment, HRA, sustainability appraisal report, draft

plans, and RLG which spans the entirety of the SMPTE process.

27

21) How is the industry sector delegate appointed to ensure that they represent

the views and concerns of their sector?

Industry sector representatives under each industry category identified are specified

within the SMPTE. Industry sector representatives are appointed by members of the

industry in question via stakeholder consultation events (Interview, 2016c).

5.2.5. Communities of interest

External

o QMO = P4

o QOP = T3, T4, T9

22) Who are the communities of interest that depend on or have a vested interest

in the sustainability or integrity of the ecosystem and its services that may be

influenced by the activities of the drivers managed under the marine spatial

plan?

Communities of interest identified in the SMPTE include fishers, natural

environmental organizations (both NGOs and statutory bodies), local government,

the local community, and tourist/leisure interests (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

23) How is the community of interest delegate appointed to ensure that they

represent their constituency?

Representative organizations of the fishing, natural environment (both NGOs and

statutory bodies), local government, local community, and tourism that are invited to

events and encouraged to provide feedback are specified in the SMPTE (Marine

Scotland, 2013a). Representatives are appointed to ensure that they represent their

constituency by members of the community of interest in question via stakeholder

consultation events.

24) Are the communities of interest located outside the management area?

Yes, some communities of interest are located outside the management area either

transnationally, such as the Welsh Assembly Government, or in the context that they

do not directly interact with the marine management area allocated in the SMPTE,

such as Scottish local terrestrial planning authorities (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

28

5.2.6. Consultation and Feedback Process

Function

o QMO = P1, P2

o QOP = T10

25) What are the consultation procedures for the members of the governance

body?

The consultation procedures for members of MS are not formally structured, and

therefore, internal input occurs on an as needed basis to inform the development of

the SMPTE process (Interview, 2016a).

26) What are the feedback procedures to inform members as to why and how

advice was either integrated or not integrated in the planning process?

The feedback procedures in place within MS to inform members as to why and how

advice was either integrated or not integrated in the SMPTE process are not formally

structured, rather, email chains and minutes for meeting support this function on an

as needed basis determined by those internal to MS (Interview, 2016a).

27) What are the requirements for record keeping for communication products as

well as consultation and feedback documents received by the members of the

governance body?

There are no formal requirements for record keeping for communication products

(beyond standard public body filing systems) as well as consultation and feedback

documents received by the members of MS in relation to the SMPTE process

(Interview, 2016a).

28) What is the most appropriate language, fora and media for communicating the

material and views?

The appropriate language, fora and media for communicating the material and views

within MS in relation to the SMPTE process are not formally structured, rather, email

chains and minutes for meeting support this function on an as needed basis

determined by those internal to MS (Interview, 2016a).

5.2.7. Public

External

o QOP = T4

29

29) What are the public constituencies that should be consulted?

The SMPTE specifies that the CA must consult with members of the general public

such as Local Community and Parish Councils, Local Trusts, and any other

interested parties or groups from the pre-statutory consultation phase through to

statutory consultation in order to provide a platform for public voices to be heard and

local knowledge to be incorporated into the final draft plan, whereby the

incorporation or disregard of such input into the SMPTE process id justified in the

Scottish Ministers’ post adoption statement (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.2.8. Public Communication Procedures

Function

o QMO = P2, P3

o QOP = T10

30) What is the communication plan and tools used to communicate key

decisions?

The SG makes available the draft plan, sustainability appraisal report, SEA, socio-

economic report, and the RLG on the government website where members of the

public can familiarize themselves with the documents and the progression of the

SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a). The HRA report is also made available on the

SG website. Each report is then subject to a 16-week statutory consultation period

where members of the public (individuals and organisations) are encouraged to

provide feedback and perspective on the SMPTE. IPFs and RLGs, which are

publically available in a disaggregated form through the National Marine Plan

Interactive (NMPi) database, are also made available through the SG website,

encouraging community stakeholders to provide current information as applicable.

Finally, the SG has an email alert system where community members can register to

receive weekly consultation information in order to keep community members

invested in the SMPTE up to date on current events.

31) Is there an appeal process where a decision is not being

understood/accepted/ tolerated by the public?

Although community stakeholders can provide ask the SG questions about and

provide feedback into the SMPTE process, there is no legislative right to an appeal

process where a decision is not being understood, accepted, and/or tolerated by the

public.

30

32) Who approves the communication plan?

The communication structure is approved by Scottish Ministers and executed by MS

as the acting CA (Interview, 2016c).

33) What controls exists on the dissemination of the key decisions and products

of the MSP?

MS makes available the draft plan, sustainability appraisal report, SEA, and socio-

economic report on the government website where members of the public can

familiarize themselves with the documents and the progression of the SMPTE

(Marine Scotland, 2013a). The HRA report is also made available on the SG

website. Each report is then subject to a 16-week statutory consultation period

where members of the public are encouraged to provide feedback and perspective

on the SMPTE. IPFs and RLGs are also made available through the SG website,

encouraging community stakeholders to provide current information as applicable.

Finally, the SG has an email alert system where community members can register to

receive weekly consultation information in order to keep community members

invested in the SMPTE up to date on current events.

5.2.9. Scientific and Technical Advisory Bodies

Ecosystem advisory body:

Function

o QMO = P4

o QOP = T1

Social advisory body:

Function

o QMO = P4

o QOP = T4, T9

Economic advisory body:

Function

o QMO = P4

o QOP = T3

31

Policy advisory body:

Function

o QMO = P4

o QOP = T2, T5

34) What are the scientific and technical advisory bodies that the planning

process will turn to for advice?

The scientific and technical advisory bodies internal to the SG that are called upon

for advice throughout the SMPTE process consist of various of experts categorized

under the learning and justice, enterprise, environment, and innovation, health and

social care, finance, strategy and external affairs, and communities divisions. The

scientific and technical advisory bodies that are external to the SG that are called

upon for advise throughout the SMPTE process consist of SNH, SEPA, HS, and the

JNCC for the SEA, and SNH for the HRA (Marine Scotland, 2013a), in conformity

with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005.

35) What are the terms of reference or accreditation related to their area of

expertise for their organization or association?

There is no standard for obligatory accreditation regarding the employment of

scientific and technical expertise within MS (Interview, 2016a).

36) What are the Best Available Techniques (BAT) that are internationally

recognized and accredited?

Due to the pre-commercial stage in which TCTs currently reside, resulting in the fact

that Scotland’s SMPTE is the first of its kind, BATs for ecosystem, social, economic,

and policy bodies have yet to be devised. Therefore, Scotland’s SMPTE can pave

the way to become the standard for SMPTE processes if it has been constructed,

implemented, and monitored effectively and in due consideration of ecosystem,

social, economic, and policy functions. A way to determine the effective structuring

of Scotland’s SMPTE is to conduct quality reviews against international best practice

policy documents such as the ICES MSP QMS, as is the scope of this paper.

37) Are there any conflicts of interest or link between the experts and the

stakeholders impacted by the proposed MSP?

The SMPTE is designed not to have conflicts of interest between experts and

relevant stakeholders. However, due to the intertwined relationships between such

32

actors, MS has undergone judicial reviews undertaken by the Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the past, although no significant findings of malpractice

has been identified and confirmed (Interview, 2016a).

38) Who are the legal advisors supporting the MSP process?

The legal advisors supporting the development of the SMPTE process are internal to

the SG (Interview, 2016a).

5.2.10. Scientific and Technical Advisory Process

Function

o QMO = P1, P3, P6

o QOP = T10

39) What is the source/reliability of the information used to formulate the advice?

Scientific and technical advice is garnered from baseline and scoping assessments

undertaken by members internal to MS (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

40) What is the metadata for the data used to validate if it is fit for purpose in the

formulation of the advice?

An extensive amount of metadata is used throughout the entire SMPTE ongoing

process to in order to be projected into decision support system tools to validate if

information is fit for purpose in the formulation of scientific and technical advice.

Such metadata is organized in conformity with UK Crown Estate procedures as they

are allocated in Inspire compliant metadata repositories (Interview, 2016a).

41) What is the process to set the terms of references and questions to be

answered by the advisory bodies?

The SG’s Marine Strategy Forum (MSF), a strategic oversight group comprised of

relevant stakeholders and scientific and technical advisory bodies are encouraged to

engage in the development of the SEA and socio-economic assessment processes

that inform the sustainability appraisal through to the statutory consultation stage in

order to set the terms of references for the SMPTE process, ultimately formulating

questions pertaining to relevant legislation and the SMPTE process itself throughout

these stages to be answered during statutory consultation (Interview, 2016b).

42) Who approves the process and who chairs to ensure that advice reflects the

33

questions asked and that the advice is fit for the purpose of planning

initiative?

The SMPTE process is approved by Scottish Ministers and chaired by the relevant

planning Policy Lead in conjunction with scientific and technical specialists

applicable to specific stages and processes of the SMPTE (e.g. the Environmental

Assessment Specialist in relation to the SEA, the Government Economist in relation

to socio-economic assessment, etc.). Decisions regarding whether or not to

incorporate such advice arising from specific stages and processes of the SMPTE

and in what capacity are then published in the Scottish Ministers’ post-adoption

statement in order to reflect a participatory and transparent planning process

(Interview, 2016b).

5.2.11. Governance Body

Function

o QMO = P1, P2, P3, P4

o QOP = T10

43) What is the governance structure needed to address the legislative

implications, ecological considerations, development priorities and community

concerns as part of the scope of the planning initiative?

The governance structure needed to address the legislative implications, ecological

considerations, development priorities, and community concerns as part of the scope

of the SMPTE falls under the Marine Scotland Act 2010, designating MS as the CA

and therefore the governance body who structured the SMPTE process, from the

scoping stage to the plan review process (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

44) What are the agreements or memorandum of understandings needed to

create the governance structure?

The agreement/memorandum of understanding implemented to facilitate the

governance structure of the SMPTE was the devolution of powers from UK

Parliament to Scottish Parliament to plan the marine environment within the former

UK EEZ bordering Scotland’s TZ under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

(Marine Scotland, 2013a).

34

5.2.12. Governance Terms of References

Function

o QMO = P2, P6

o QOP = T8

45) How many members are required to form a quorum for decision-making or to

reach a consensus on recommendations?

There are no formal obligations in the SG planning structure to incorporate a

specified number of members within decision-making quorums or to reach a

consensus on recommendations, rather, the emphasis for MS n relation to the

SMPTE process is to identify and engage the most relevant stakeholders who wish

to have a say with the proper scientific and technical experts and advisory bodies

(Interview, 2016b).

46) How do members communicate within the governance structure?

Members of MS communicate within the SMPTE governance structure in an informal

manner via email chains and minutes for meetings on an as needed basis (Interview,

2016a).

47) What is the expected response timeframe of the governance structure?

There is no formal legislated expected response timeframe within the MS

governance structure, rather, email chains and minutes for meeting support this

function on an as needed basis, determined by those internal to MS (Interview,

2016a).

48) How does the governance structure communicate with senior MSP

management?

There is no formal senior SMPTE management communication protocol within the

MS governance structure, rather, email chains and minutes for meeting support this

function on an as needed basis (Interview, 2016a).

35

49) How does the governance structure connect with the political leaders to

demonstrate support from political leaders?

The SMPTE process itself requires the involvement and approval of Scottish

Ministers through the final draft plan to the post-adoption statement (Interview,

2016b).

50) What are the competent authorities identified in the Terms of References for

the planning process?

MS, as the sole acting CA, is identified in the terms of reference for the planning

process (Interview, 2016a).

5.2.13. Governance Business Rules

Function

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T10

51) How is the advice and feedback from the industry stakeholders and

communities of interest taken into consideration in the governance and

oversight of the planning initiative?

Input from relevant industry and community stakeholders is taken into consideration

in order to obtain sectoral and local knowledge and values when searching for

potentially suitable tidal energy development sites during the pre-statutory

consultation stage, and continually updated during advancing stages of the SMPTE

(RLG, IPF, SEA, socio-economic assessment, HRA, SA, consultation analysis

report) (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Industry and community stakeholder input is then

documented and published in the pre-consultation analysis report, IFP, consultation

analysis report, with the post-adoption statement detailing how such input was

incorporated into the SMPTE final plan options.

36

52) Do the recommendation(s) follow the established decision-making protocols

and rules in accordance with the terms of reference?

Given that established decision-making protocols for the SMPTE demand the

incorporation of relevant industry and community stakeholder inputs, as well as

documented and published proof of the methods in which such input was taken into

consideration to inform the SMPTE process and final plan options, recommendations

made are easily verifiable in terms of being in accordance with the terms of

reference via the post-adoption statement (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

53) Are the recommendations aligned with the public policy agenda of the

mandated government?

The recommendations are aligned with the broader policy agenda of the NMP,

legislated under the Marine Scotland Act 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access

Act 2009 (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

54) Where and when in the recommendation process is the approval from political

leaders sought and by whom?

MS seeks the Scottish Ministers’ approval of SMPTE plan option areas during final

draft plan stage through to the post-adoption statement Interview, 2016b).

55) What are the delegation instruments for the MSP Competent Authority and

the other competent authorities?

The delegation instruments employed by MS for the SMPTE consist of steering

groups who act as technical and scientific advisory bodies for the SEA, socio-

economic assessment, and the HRA which are driven by policies of the SMPTE in

conformity with the NMP approved by Scottish Ministers (Interview, 2016b).

5.2.14. Marine Spatial Planning Risk Criteria

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2, P5

o QOP = T10

56) What are the criteria used to assess the severity of impacts?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

37

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the SMPTE process undertook an

opportunities and constraints approach rather than a pressures and impacts

approach to assess the suitability of areas for development. The SA took draws

upon a list of regionally inclusive environmental, social, and economic receptors in

the SEA, socio-economic assessment, and HRA. For environmental receptors, the

SEA took into consideration technology specific TCT installation and operation and

assessed their associated dynamics against a criteria of baseline conditions

categorized as biodiversity, flora, and fauna, population and human health, water

and the marine environment, marine geology and coastal processes, historic

environment, and landscape and seascape (Marine Scotland, 2015c). Such

baseline criteria were then used to determine how the associated TCT growth

scenarios, categorized quantitatively as low (indicative occupancy of 0.8-2.5%),

medium (2.6%), and high (5.1%), may influence the level of associated risks,

categorized qualitatively as low, medium, or high. The socio-economic assessment

draws from the EIAs and socio-economic impacts of past offshore renewable energy

projects in order to qualitatively determine the socio impacts and quantitatively

measure the economic impacts of low (0.5GW of installed capacity), central

(1.25GW), and high (2.5GW) growth scenarios on different locations and population

demographics within Scotland (Marine Scotland, 2015a). The HRA assessed the

potential for likely significant impacts of tidal energy development on SACs and

SPAs located within a 100km buffer zone from draft plan options (Marine Scotland,

2015b).

57) How were these criteria established and validated?

As alluded to above, the criteria of environmental, ecological, social, and economic

constraints were established by gathering baseline data specific to stressors and

receptors, site characteristics, geographical proximity, and various population

dynamics and demographics, in combination with drawing from past experiences of

similar sectors, and qualitatively and quantitatively assessing risk ranging from low to

high in relation to different TCT growth scenarios, also ranging from low to high

(Marine Scotland, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).

58) What are the risks being perceived by all participants involved in the planning

process.

The risks being perceived by all stakeholders of the SMPTE include marine animal

collision and displacement, benthic and pelagic habitat alteration, hydrodynamic

alteration, sediment disposition, visual pollution, user – user conflicts, negative

disruption of the current economic climate as a result of user – user conflicts and the

38

resulting social costs associated with negative scenarios, and the absence of

consideration of draft plan options on contrasting population demographics in given

local, municipal, and regional settlements (Marine Scotland, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).

59) Are the risk criteria described in plain language to ensure that they will be

understood by all participants?

All associated reports with the NMP and SMPTE process and framework include a a

non-technical summary in order to be easily understood by all stakeholders of the

SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).

5.2.15. Ecosystem Management Outcomes

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2, P3

o QOP = T1, T10

60) How are the ecosystem management outcomes aligned with the ecosystem

boundaries and significant ecosystem features and ecosystem services to be

safeguarded?

Due to the strategic nature of the SMPTE, ecosystem boundaries are not employed

to devise ecosystem management framework. However, MS will employ a deploy

and monitor scenario as tidal development draft plan areas are given consent in

order to safeguard significant ecosystem features and services (Marine Scotland,

2013a). Furthermore, the strategic allocation of SMPTE plan option areas are in

compliance with various EU Directives pertaining to MSP, including the SEA

Directive, Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, MSP Directive, and the MSFD.

61) Can the ecosystem management outcomes be achieved from the marine

spatial plan within the management area?

The NMP stresses the importance of devising and implementing coordinated

national, regional, and site/development specific monitoring strategies as the status

of TCTs develops into a commercial scale sector. Given that the current iteration of

SEA becomes an ongoing process, as suggested in the SMPTE consultation draft as

being subject to two-year time intervals (Marine Scotland, 2013a), in conjunction with

the legislated requirement of undertaking project-level EIAs for plan areas put

forward as a mitigation measure under the HRA (Marine Scotland, 2015b), it is highly

plausible that the SMPTE will achieve ecosystem management outcomes within the

management area.

39

62) Are some of the ecosystem management outcomes dependent on

management measures or marine spatial plans that are outside the

management area?

While ecosystem management outcomes of the SMPTE are indeed inherently

intertwined with management measures and MSPs outside of the SMPTE

management area, these potential conflicts and anticipated interactions are taken

into consideration in the broader NMP from which the SMPTE conforms its policies

must conform to (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

63) Are the ecosystem management outcomes described in plain language that

will be understood by all participants?

All associated reports with the NMP and SMPTE process and framework include a

non-technical summary in order to be easily understood by all stakeholders of the

SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).

5.2.16. MSP Management Outcomes

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2, P3

o QOP = T7, T10

64) How do the MSP management outcomes align with the industry sector

development priorities of the management area?

The key aims of the SMPTE are to maximize the aggregate installed capacity of tidal

energy in Scotland, facilitate enhanced economic development, investment, and

employment, and minimize adverse implication on people, other sectors, and the

environment (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Taking this into consideration, in conjunction

that the policies constructed in the SMPTE are derived from those of the NMP which

is multi-sectoral in nature, the SMPTE was essentially constructed to align industry

development priorities in a sustainable growth scenario context.

40

65) How do the MSP outcomes reconcile the needs of industry with the public and

the communities of interests?

Since the SMPTE was essentially constructed to align industry development

priorities in a sustainable growth scenario context, SMPTE outcomes reconcile the

needs of industry and community stakeholders through the engagement of such

stakeholders throughout the SMPTE process (pre-statutory consultation stage, RLG,

IPF, SEA, socio-economic assessment, HRA, SA, consultation analysis report)

(Marine Scotland, 2013a).

66) Can the MSP management outcomes be achieved with the marine spatial

plan of the management area?

The NMP stresses the importance of devising and implementing coordinated

national, regional, and site/development specific monitoring strategies as the status

of TCTs develops into a commercial scale sector (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Given

that the current iteration of sustainability appraisal becomes an ongoing process, as

stated in the SMPTE as being subject to two-year time intervals suggested in the

consultation draft, in conjunction with the low, medium, and high growth scenarios

outlined in the NMP, it is highly plausible that the SMPTE will achieve ecosystem

management outcomes within the management area.

67) Are some of the MSP management outcomes influenced by activities outside

the management area or by other jurisdictions or policies?

While management outcomes of the SMPTE are indeed inherently intertwined with

management measures and MSPs outside of the SMPTE management area, these

potential conflicts and anticipated interactions are taken into consideration in the

broader NMP from which the SMPTE conforms its policies must conform to (Marine

Scotland, 2013a).

68) Are the MSP management outcomes described in plain language that will be

understood by all participants?

All associated reports with the NMP and SMPTE process and framework include a

non-technical summary in order to be easily understood by all stakeholders of the

SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).

41

5.2.17. MSP Secretariat

MSP Secretariat:

Function

o QMO = P2, P4, P5, P6

o QOP = T6

Information management:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P5, P6

Record keeping:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P5, P6

Work plans – project plan – tracking:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P5, P6

Human and financial resource tracking:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P5, P6

69) How and where is information (e.g. data, records, advice) stored?

All pertinent information related to the SMPTE process is stored in the SGs

electronic records management system (Interview, 2016b).

70) What is the information and document management system?

The information and document management system related to the SMPTE process

is the SGs electronic records management system (Interview, 2016b).

71) How are versions maintained and controlled?

The information and document management system related to the SMPTE process

is the SGs electronic records management system (Interview, 2016a).

42

72) What are the security requirements to access and safeguard information?

Unpublished information pertaining to the SMPTE in any manner can only be

accessed by and are safeguarded through a secured built-in version control SCOTS

IT account system internal to SG employees (Interview, 2016c).

73) Who, from the MSP secretariat, is responsible for managing the information?

The information and document management system related to the SMPTE process

is the SGs electronic records management system. However, there is no single

member of MS who is responsible for the management of information pertaining to

the SMPTE, rather, individual SG employees are responsible for managing their own

individual information in which they produced (Interview, 2016a). This information is

disseminated amongst SG internals on an as needed basis, and is available through

the SG corporate records management system.

74) Is the MSP Secretariat included in terms of references of the Governance

Body?

Yes, the MSP Secretariat is included in terms of references of the Governance Body

(Interview, 2016a).

75) What are the copyright or proprietary requirements of the data and information

submitted to the advisory processes?

Any data and information created by MS in relation the SMPTE and submitted to the

advisory processes is be copyrighted under the Crown Copyright Marine Scotland.

However, this does not necessarily present any constraints to third party use, as

most information is available through the NMPi, and the SG is subject to the

provisions of the Freedom of Information regulations (Interview, 2016c).

76) What are the filing plans for all documents produced during the planning and

implementation process?

The information and document management system related to the SMPTE process

is the SGs electronic records management system (Interview, 2016a).

43

77) What is the file retention period and requirements for the documents produced

during the planning and implementation process?

All pertinent information related to the SMPTE process is stored for relevant periods

of time in conformity with Freedom of Information/Environmental Information

regulations (Interview, 2016b).

78) What are the privacy and accesses to information requirements for the

documents on file?

The information produced by MS in relation to the SMPTE is classified as official

sensitive, as opposed to secret or top secret, and can be accessed by an SG

employee via their secured built-in version control Scots account system (Interview,

2016a).

79) What is the financial system used to track the human and financial resources?

The financing division of the SG within MS is the responsible authority for tracking

human and financial resources in relation to the SMPTE process. All relevant

expenditures are recorded under and traceable to the SG Enterprise Accounting

System (Interview, 2016c).

5.3. Risk Identification

Drawing upon the ISO 31000 risk management standard, risk identification is defined

as the the process of finding, recognizing and describing risks, including all possible

sources, events, causes, and consequences of risk both within and outside the

management area in which operational and environmental events resulting from the

activities of drivers have the potential to produce ecological, cultural, social,

economic, and legal repercussions (Cormier et al., 2015). In the context of a MSP

QMS, risk identification produces a risk profile which informs the construction of a

risk assessment that will estimate the probability and impact of each risk identified.

Therefore, it is essential that the risk identification process is scoped appropriately as

any risk excluded from the risk identification, and subsequently the risk profile, will

not be taken into consideration for the remainder of the MSP process.

44

5.3.1. Significant Ecosystem Components

Ecosystem biogeographic classification:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T1

Significant ecological and biological criteria:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T1

Significant ecosystem components:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T1

80) What criteria are used to establish the ecosystem boundaries?

The SMPTE is a strategic MSP, therefore ecosystem boundaries have not been

established.

81) Are the boundaries drawn by topographical or process-related criteria?

The SMPTE is a strategic MSP, therefore ecosystem boundaries have not been

established.

82) What are the criteria to identify the significant ecosystem features and

processes that need to be safeguarded to avoid ecosystem level

consequences?

The SMPTE placed high constraint levels on SACs, SPAs, sites of scientific interest

(SSSI), national scenic areas (NSAs – areas of outstanding scenic value from a

national context) (Scottish National Heritage, 2016), and European RAMSAR sites,

which are considered ecologically significant and sensitive when evaluating suitable

sites for tidal energy development during the scoping stage (Interview, 2016c).

83) How were these criteria established and validated?

SACs and SPAs are established and evaluated under EU biological conservation

45

legislation within Natura 2000. Together with some coastal SSSIs, SACs and SPAs

combine with designated MPAs to form Scottish marine protected area network

under the Marine Scotland Act 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

(Marine Scotland, 2013a). NSAs are established by SNH and legislated under the

Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 (Scottish National Heritage, 2016), and European

RAMSAR sites established by the JNCC and legislated under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (JNCC,

2016).

84) In terms of ecosystem integrity, what is the zone of influence of the activities

of the drivers operating in the management area?

Drivers identified in the SMPTE as operating within the SMPTE management areas

include potential tidal energy development and associated grid infrastructure,

shipping and navigation, and recreation. Potential impacts are documented by the

SEA as being site and technology specific, but generally of low overall risk to

compromising ecosystem integrity (Marine Scotland, 2015c). Receptor pathways

acknowledged in the SEA include fish, marine mammal, and diving sea bird collision

risk with TCTs and alteration of hydrodynamics and associated interwoven coastal

processes.

85) In terms of ecosystem integrity, what is the zone of influence of the activities

of drivers operating outside the management area?

Drivers operating outside the SMPTE management areas are not specified in detail

within the SMPTE, the detailed supporting documents published to inform the

SMPTE construction and adoption process, the NMP, and the detailed supporting

documents published to inform the NMP construction and adoption process.

Therefore, exact judgements concerning the activities of drivers operating outside

the SMPTE management area impacting the ecosystem integrity within the SMPTE

management area cannot be made.

86) What are methods used to conduct the risk identification?

The criteria used to identify risk to valued ecosystem components are presented in

the SEA and the HRA. The SEA takes into consideration technology specific TCT

installation and operation and assessed their associated dynamics against a criteria

of baseline conditions categorized as biodiversity, flora, and fauna, population and

human health, water and the marine environment, marine geology and coastal

processes, historic environment, and landscape and seascape (Marine Scotland,

46

2015c). Such baseline criteria were then used to determine how the associated TCT

growth scenarios, categorized quantitatively as low (indicative occupancy of 0.8-

2.5%), medium (2.6%), and high (5.1%), may influence the level of associated risks,

categorized qualitatively as low, medium, or high (Marine Scotland, 2015a). The

HRA assessed the potential for likely significant impacts of tidal energy development

on SACs and SPAs located within a 100 km buffer zone from draft plan options

(Marine Scotland, 2015b).

5.3.2. Significant Ecosystem Services

Significant ecosystems services criteria:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T3, T4, T9

Significant ecosystem services:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T3, T4, T9

87) What criteria are used to identify the significant traditional, cultural, social and

economic ecosystem services?

The socio-economic assessment identifies significant traditional, cultural, social and

economic ecosystem services by drawing from the EIAs and socio-economic

impacts of past offshore renewable energy projects in order to qualitatively

determine the socio impacts and quantitatively measure the economic impacts of low

(0.5GW of installed capacity), central (1.25GW), and high (2.5GW) growth scenarios

on different locations and population demographics within Scotland (Marine

Scotland, 2015a).

88) Are the ecosystem services vulnerabilities related to the activities of the

drivers occurring within the management area?

The ecosystem services, including the marine space, that support key stakeholders

identified in the SMPTE (fishing, shipping/navigation, natural environment, local

government, grid, national/devolved government, industry, community, and

tourism/recreation) are potentially vulnerable to drivers occurring within the SMPTE

management area, both from a user – user and user – environment conflict context

(Marine Scotland, 2013a). This is the primary trigger for the SMP framework from

47

scoping to post-adoption plan in order to promote the SMPTEs strategic aims of

identifying preferred development areas for tidal energy implementation in Scotland,

facilitating enhanced economic development, investment, and employment, and

minimizing adverse implication on people, other sectors, and the environment.

89) Are the ecosystem services vulnerabilities related to the activities of drivers

occurring outside the management area?

Drivers operating outside the SMPTE management area have been taken into

consideration via weighting allotted to them within the constraints layer applied in the

scoping and RLG stages (Interview, 2016).

90) Does the human capital (complementary assets) exist to produce societal

benefits from ecosystem services?

Ecosystem services have not been quantified by the SMPTE process, therefore, it is

not possible to determine whether the human capital exists in order to produce

associated societal benefits.

91) What was the process to validate the findings of the significant ecosystem

services with the relevant communities of interest?

Although valued ecosystem components were identified in the SEA and HRA,

significant ecosystem services have not been quantified by the SMPTE process.

5.3.3. Significant Driver Activities and Pressures

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T3

92) How are the current and future activities of drivers being identified and kept

current?

The current and future activities of drivers within the SMPTE management area are

being identified and kept current through two-year monitoring and review periods of

the SMPTE suggested in the consultation draft undertaken by MS (Marine Scotland,

2013a). The current and future activities of drivers outside the SMPTE management

area that may impact environmental, ecological, social, and economic processes and

functions are being identified and kept current through five-year monitoring and

review periods of the NMP undertaken by MS (Marine Scotland, 2014).

48

93) What criteria are used to select the “significant” drivers in terms of the risks

they introduce in the management area in relation to other drivers and the

ecosystem?

There are no quantifiable criteria employed to select significant drivers within the

SMPTE management area, however, scoping studies, baseline environmental,

ecological, economic, and social data published in the sustainability assessment

report, and RLG are used to determine the potential impacts resulting from the

activities of drivers within the SMPTE management area.

94) How is the marine development agenda used to inform the marine spatial

planning process and its plan of new/emerging drivers?

The marine development agenda is used to inform the SMPTE process and potential

new emerging drivers through RLG and two-year time interval monitoring and review

periods suggested in the consultation draft (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

95) What are the activities emanating from those drivers and, subsequently, the

pressures generated from those activities?

The activities emanating from drivers specified within SMPTE plan option areas

include fishing, shipping and navigation, grid, industry, tourism and recreation, and

tidal energy development (Marine Scotland, 2013a). These drivers are projected to

generate pressures related to the functioning and integrity of benthic habitats and

species, nature conservation areas, priority marine features, seabirds, cetaceans,

elasmobranchs, seals, protected fish, shellfish, water quality, sediments, soils, and

bathymetry

5.3.4. Management Area Regulatory Requirements

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T5

96) What are the legislative statutes or agreements that are used to manage the

activities of the drivers operating in the management area?

The Marine Scotland Act 2010 provides the legislative and management framework

for the marine environment within Scotland’s TZ and the Marine and Coastal Access

Act 2009 provides the legislative and management framework for MSP within

49

Scottish waters out to Scotland’s EEZ (Marine Scotland, 2014).

97) What is the occupation rate and location of the drivers operating in the

management area?

The location of drivers operating within the SMPTE management area are listed in

the socio-economic assessment, however, further specifications related to the

occupation rate and micro-siting of TCTs within plan area options in relation to the

magnitude of spatial and temporal uses of drivers within the SMPTE management

area will be undertaken in more detail as licenses for commercial scale development

are issued (Interview, 2016b).

98) How is the inventory of legislation and policies maintained current and up-to-

date?

The SEA Directive requires that a baseline of all policies and legislation applicable to

every stage of the SMPTE process is compiled by MS and listed in the SMP SEA

(Interview, 2016b).

99) Are transnational issues handled and what is the relationship to regional

bodies such as Regional Seas Commissions?

Transnational issues (including bio-regional marine issues) are handled by the UK

government, which coordinates all EU Member States potentially affected or with an

expressed interest in the SMPTE of the statutory consultation process in conformity

with the SEA Directive (Interview, 2016b).

5.3.5. Risk Profile

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2, P7

o QOP = T10

100) What were the consultation and feedback processes to ensure that competent

authorities, industry stakeholders and communities of interest concur with the

description of the risks in the risk profile?

Consultation amongst the CA and relevant industry and community stakeholders is

taken into consideration in order to obtain sectoral and local knowledge and values

when searching for potentially suitable tidal energy development sites during the pre-

statutory consultation stage, and continually updated during advancing stages of the

50

SMPTE (RLG, IPF, SEA, socio-economic assessment, HRA, SA, consultation

analysis report) (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Industry and community stakeholder

input is then documented and published in the pre-consultation analysis report, IFP,

consultation analysis report, with the post-adoption statement detailing how such

input was incorporated into the SMPTE final plan options.

101) What verification is being done to ensure that the risk profile is linked to the

MSP management outcomes and the ecosystem management outcomes?

MS will employ a deploy and monitor scenario as tidal development draft plan areas

are given consent in order to determine the impact of drivers on ecosystem

components and/or processes, incrementally gathering information to inform

mitigation measures as appropriate in order to ensure that SMPTE strategic aims are

met (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

102) Is the language, media and techniques used to describe the risk profile

adapted to the audience?

All associated reports with the NMP and SMPTE process and framework include a

non-technical summary in order to be easily understood by all stakeholders of the

SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2015a; 2015b; 2015c).

5.4. Risk Analysis

Drawing upon the ISO 31000 risk management standard, risk analysis is defined as

the process of comprehending and determining the probability and impact of risks

both within and outside the management area in which operational and

environmental events resulting from the activities of drivers have the potential to

produce ecological, cultural, social, economic, and legal repercussions (Cormier et

al., 2015). Informed by the risk profile generated from the risk identification process,

the contents of the risk analysis will feed into the risk evaluation process which will

establish the severity of the risks to inform risk treatment procedures.

5.4.1. Cause and Effect Analysis

Function

o QMO = P3, P6

o QOP = T10

51

103) What are the ecosystem components or processes that would be altered or

degraded as a result of the pressures occurring from the activities of the

drivers?

The ecosystem components or processes that would be altered or degraded as a

result of the pressures occurring from the activities of the drivers include benthic

habitats and species, nature conservation areas, priority marine features, seabirds,

cetaceans, elasmobranchs, seals, protected fish, shellfish, water quality, sediments,

soils, and bathymetry (Marine Scotland, 2015c).

104) Has the pressure-activity-state change–impact chain been defined for relevant

developments?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the pressure-activity-state change–

impact chain has yet to be defined. The SMPTE process undertook an opportunities

and constraints approach rather than a pressures and impacts approach to assess

the severity of impacts. However, MS will employ a deploy and monitor scenario as

tidal development draft plan areas are given consent in order to determine the

impact of drivers on ecosystem components and/or processes, incrementally

gathering information to inform mitigation measures as appropriate (Marine Scotland,

2013a).

105) What would be the duration and trajectory or trajectories of the recovery?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the duration and trajectory of

recovery to ecosystem components or processes that would be altered or degraded

as a result of the pressures occurring from the activities of the drivers within and

outside the SMPTE management area have not been estimated. However, MS will

employ a deploy and monitor scenario as tidal development draft plan areas are

given consent in order to determine the impact of drivers on ecosystem components

and/or processes, incrementally gathering information to inform mitigation measures

as appropriate (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

106) What is the feasibility of the mitigation or restoration strategies that could be

implemented if natural recovery is not possible?

52

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the feasibility of mitigation and/or

restoration strategies have yet to be determined. However, MS will employ a deploy

and monitor scenario as tidal development draft plan areas are given consent in

order to determine the impact of drivers on ecosystem components and/or

processes, incrementally gathering information to inform the feasibility of mitigation

and/or restoration strategies as appropriate (Interview, 2016c).

107) What method was used to conduct the cause and effect analysis?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the formulation of a cause and effect

analysis is an ongoing process. Although individual commercial-scale TCT test

results have been obtained from various developers and EMEC, MS will employ a

deploy and monitor scenario as tidal development draft plan areas are given consent

in order to determine the impact of drivers on ecosystem components and/or

processes, incrementally gathering information to inform mitigation measures as

appropriate (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.4.2. Impacts Consequences and Repercussions

Ecosystem impacts:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T1, T10

Ecosystems services consequences:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T4, T9, T10

Economic consequences:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T3, T10

53

Driver conflicts:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T5, T10

Legal repercussions:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T5, T10

108) What are the ecosystem features and process that may be altered or

degraded as a result of the pressures introduced by the activities of the

drivers operating in the management area?

The ecosystem features and processes that would be altered or degraded as a result

of the pressures occurring from the activities of the drivers include benthic habitats

and species, nature conservation areas, priority marine features, seabirds,

cetaceans, elasmobranchs, seals, protected fish, shellfish, water quality, sediments,

soils, and bathymetry (Marine Scotland, 2015c).

109) What are the traditional, cultural and social consequences if a given

ecosystem service is impacted by pressures or changes introduced by the

activities of the drivers operating in the management area?

The SMPTE socio-economic assessment report estimates that the potential

consequences categorized under the “social” umbrella resulting from the disruption

of ecosystem services such as benthic habitats and species, nature conservation

areas, priority marine features, seabirds, cetaceans, elasmobranchs, seals,

protected fish, shellfish, water quality, sediments, soils, and bathymetry (Marine

Scotland, 2015c), via the deployment of tidal energy projects are limited to

commercial fisheries, recreational boaters, sea kayakers, and sea anglers (Marine

Scotland, 2015a). However, such impacts are expected to be negligible in the broad

picture, as any negatively affected social receptor should be balanced out by the

positive impacts of another, although this would mean that impacts are rather

localized and be assessed as such.

110) What societal benefits would be impeded or impacted by the ecosystem

alteration and loss or reduction of ecosystem services?

The SMPTE socio-economic assessment report estimates that the societal benefits

54

that would be impeded or impacted by ecosystem alteration and loss or reduction of

ecosystem services such as those provided by benthic habitats and species, nature

conservation areas, priority marine features, seabirds, cetaceans, elasmobranchs,

seals, protected fish, shellfish, water quality, sediments, soils, and bathymetry

(Marine Scotland, 2015c), via the deployment of tidal energy projects are limited to

commercial fisheries, recreational boaters, sea kayakers, and sea anglers (Marine

Scotland, 2015a). However, such impacts are expected to be negligible in the broad

picture, as any societal benefit impeded should be balanced out by the positive

impacts of another, although this would mean that impacts are rather localized and

be assessed as such. The potential effects on such societal benefits produced from

sectors have been quantified in monetary terms under three TCT growth scenarios,

low (0.5GW), central (1.25GW), and high (2.5GW), for the three plan option regions,

southwest, west, and north. The impact on aggregate presented value (PV) and

gross added value (GVA) for commercial fisheries amongst all regions and averaged

across all scenarios can be calculated as £1.5 million. This demonstrates a

miniscule impact on societal benefits, although only the high TCT growth scenario

has estimated a potential negative impact on sectors in the North region in particular,

estimated at £9.93 million.

111) What is the size of the community or electorate that would react to the

consequences?

The SMPTE socio-economic assessment report estimates that the potential

consequences categorized under the “social” umbrella resulting from the disruption

of ecosystem services such as benthic habitats and species, nature conservation

areas, priority marine features, seabirds, cetaceans, elasmobranchs, seals,

protected fish, shellfish, water quality, sediments, soils, and bathymetry (Marine

Scotland, 2015c), via the deployment of tidal energy projects is negligible on a

national and regional scale. However, very minor affects are estimated on a local

scale, therefore local communities situated in close proximity to plan option areas

engaging in commercial fishing, recreational boating, sea kayaking, and sea angling

may react to such consequences of tidal energy development.

112) What are the potential economic losses or liabilities if activities are displaced

or encroached on by the activities of other drivers occurring in the

management area?

The potential economic loses produced from sectors have been quantified in

monetary terms under three TCT growth scenarios, low (0.5GW), central (1.25GW),

and high (2.5GW), for the three plan option regions, southwest, west, and north

55

(Marine Scotland, 2015a). The impact on aggregate presented value (PV) and gross

added value (GVA) for commercial fisheries amongst all regions and averaged

across all scenarios can be calculated as £1.5 million. This demonstrates a

miniscule impact on societal benefits, although only the high TCT growth scenario

has estimated a potential negative impact on sectors in the North region in particular,

estimated at £9.93 million.

113) What strategic or international repercussions could occur if the ecosystem

management outcomes are not achieved?

In the event that ecosystem management outcomes of the NMP in management

areas of the SMPTE are compromised, EU marine legislation including the MSFD

and the MSP Directive set out the strategic and/or international repercussions that

are to ensue (Interview, 2016b).

114) Is there a conflict resolution / appeal process when management outcome is

not being achieved?

In the event that ecosystem management outcomes of the NMP in management

areas of the SMPTE are not achieved EU marine legislation including the MSFD and

the MSP Directive establish a framework for a conflict resolution/appeal process

(Interview, 2016b).

5.4.3. Risk Matrix

Inputs/Outputs

o QMO = P2

o QOP = T7, T10

115) How are the contributions of the various causes integrated to determine

management priorities?

The contributions of various causes are integrated to determine management

priorities manifested as strategic aims through the scoping stage all the way through

to the Scottish Ministers’ approval of the final draft plan, with contributions

concerning specific scientific and technical advisory exclusive of the sustainability

appraisal persistent throughout the SMPTE process via RLG (Interview, 2016a).

56

116) Are the risk criteria integrated in the classification of the likelihood and extent

of the events and consequences?

The environmental and ecological, social, and economic risk criteria are measured in

likelihood and magnitude of risk under probability of risk occurring via the SEA and

HRA, with social and economic risk measured in relation to three growth scenarios,

low (0.5GW), central (1.25GW), and high (2.5GW), via the socio-economic

assessment, although only economic risk has been quantified (Marine Scotland,

2015a).

117) How was the likelihood and severity of a risk occurring described and

validated with the participants?

The likelihood and severity of environmental, ecological, social, and economic risks

are validated internally within MS by measuring it against baseline data and sharing

results with external stakeholders from the sustainability appraisal report to the post-

adoption statement (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.5. Risk Evaluation

Drawing upon the ISO 31000 risk management standard, risk evaluation is defined

as the process of comparing the output of the risk analysis with risk criteria in order

to discern whether risks are acceptable and/or tolerable by all stakeholders engaged

within the planning process (Cormier et al., 2015). Outputs of the risk evaluation

process inform the management and/or mitigation measures formulated during the

risk treatment process.

5.5.1. Management Measures Evaluations

Function

o QMO = P2, P6

o QOP = T5, T6

118) What are the criteria used to evaluate and classify the effectiveness and

feasibility of the management options, given that information obtained from

competent authorities on the effectiveness of selected management

measures may be confidential?

The criteria used to evaluate and classify the effectiveness and feasibility of the

management options within SMPTE plan option areas are the assessment of policy

tools and objectives of the NMP in which the SMPTE must be consistent with, and

57

will be undertaken when licenses for commercial tidal energy developments have

been issued (Interview, 2016b).

119) Were the management measures derived from the inputs of all relevant

players?

Management measures were derived from the inputs of MS staff, as the sole acting

CA, through the entirety of the SMPTE process, Scottish Ministers from the final draft

plan to the post adoption statement, scientific and technical experts engaged with

steering groups such as the MSF to inform the sustainability appraisal, and all

relevant community and industry stakeholders from the pre-statutory consultation

stage through to the post-adoption statement (Interview, 2016b).

120) What are the existing legislations, regulations, directives, policies, best

management practices, standard operating procedures that may need to be

implemented for each management option being considered?

The methods used to identify the existing legislations, regulations, directives,

policies, best management practices, standard operating procedures that may need

to be implemented within SMPTE plan option areas are garnered from the

assessment of policy tools and objectives of the NMP in which the SMPTE must be

consistent with (Interview, 2016b).

121) How is the evaluation of the management measures being conducted (e.g.

technique, qualifications of assessors, etc.) and documented?

The evaluation of the management measures of the SMPTE are conducted through

the assessment of policy tools and objectives of the NMP in which the SMPTE must

be consistent with, and will be documented and stored in the SGs electronic records

management system (Interview, 2016b).

5.5.2. Existing Management Measures Acceptable for the Marine Spatial Plan

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P1, P3

o QOP = T1, T2, T5

122) What could be the legal and policy liabilities and repercussions arising from

not achieving the MSP or ecosystem management outcomes?

In the event that ecosystem management outcomes of the NMP in management

58

areas of the SMPTE are compromised, EU marine legislation including the MSFD

and the MSP Directive establish the legal and policy liabilities and repercussions that

are to ensue (Interview, 2016b).

123) What could be the strategic or international repercussions if the MSP or

ecosystem management outcomes are not achieved?

In the event that ecosystem management outcomes of the NMP in management

areas of the SMPTE are compromised, EU marine legislation including the MSFD

and the MSP Directive set out strategic and/or international repercussions that are to

ensue (Interview, 2016b).

124) What are the monitoring plans needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the

existing management measures?

The two-year monitoring and review period suggested in the SMPTE consultation

draft is employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing management

measures (Interview, 2016b).

5.5.3. New or Enhanced Management Measures Needed for the Marine Spatial Plan

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P1, P3

o QOP = T1, T2, T5

125) What could be the legal and policy liabilities and repercussions arising from

not achieving the MSP or ecosystem management outcomes?

In the event that ecosystem management outcomes of the NMP in management

areas of the SMPTE are compromised, EU marine legislation including the MSFD

and the MSP Directive sets out legal and policy liabilities and repercussions that are

to ensue (Interview, 2016b).

126) What could be the strategic or international repercussions if the MSP or

ecosystem management outcomes are not achieved?

In the event that ecosystem management outcomes of the NMP in management

areas of the SMPTE are compromised, EU marine legislation including the MSFD

and the MSP Directive set out strategic and/or international repercussions that are to

ensue (Interview, 2016b).

59

127) What are the monitoring plans needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the

existing, enhanced or additional management measures?

The two-year monitoring and review period suggested in the SMPTE consultation

draft is employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing, enhanced, or

additional management measures (Interview, 2016b).

128) What criteria were used to evaluate the tolerability of the risks?

The criteria employed to evaluate the tolerability of environmental, ecological,

economic, and social risks are presented as assessment objectives listed in the

annexes of the SEA, socio-economic, and HRA reports used to inform the

sustainability appraisal report (Interview, 2016b).

129) Who is involved in that evaluation from the competent authorities, the industry

stakeholders and the communities of interest?

Decisions concerning the evaluation of the effectiveness of the SMPTE process and

management measures within its boundaries involve the input of MS, relevant

stakeholders and scientific and technical advisory bodies apart of the SG’s Marine

Strategy Forum (MSF), approved by Scottish Ministers and chaired by the Policy

Lead in conjunction with scientific and technical specialists applicable to specific

stages and processes of the SMPTE (e.g. the Environmental Assessment Specialist

in relation to the SEA, the Government Economist in relation to socio-economic

assessment, etc.). The evaluation is then published in the Scottish Ministers’ post-

adoption statement in order to reflect a participatory and transparent planning

process (Interview, 2016b).

5.5.4. Marine Spatial Risk Register

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2, P6, P7

o QOP = T10

130) Where is the risk register maintained and filed and how is its access

controlled?

All responses emanating from the statutory consultation stages of the SMPTE

process are stored in the SGs electronic records management system and published

in the post-adoption statement (Interview, 2016b).

60

131) How is the risk register made available to all participants for communication

purposes?

All inputs and outputs used to inform and establish the risk register are published

online and justified through the publication of the post-adoption statement (Interview,

2016b).

132) Who reviews and keeps the risk register up-to-date as decisions to develop

new or enhanced management measures are made?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, there has not been a need as of yet

to review the risk register in order to develop new or enhanced management

measures based real-time commercial deployment interaction data. Furthermore,

although all data concerning the SMPTE is documented and stored in the SGs

electronic records management system, no individual MS employee has been

delegated with the responsibility of reviewing and updating the risk register, rather, it

is the responsibility of each individual SG employee to keep the information they

have produced up to date based on the availability and accessibility or pertinent

information and the priorities set forth by the SG through project delegation.

5.6. Risk Treatment

Drawing upon the ISO 31000 risk management standard, risk treatment is defined as

the process of either modifying risk through avoidance, eliminating risk sources, or

reducing risk through prevention or mitigation of consequences (Cormier et al.,

2015). Drawing upon management options identified in risk evaluation and

documented in the risk register, risk treatment devises spatial and temporal

management measures that take into consideration the costs, benefits, and

feasibility of implementing the MSP as its output.

5.6.1. Spatial and Temporal Management Options

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P1, P3

o QOP = T10

133) Are the proposed management options able to reduce the risks of not

achieving the MSP and ecosystem management outcomes to a level as low

as reasonably practicable (ALARP)?

61

Due to the strategic deploy and monitor management protocol adopted by the SC in

relation to TCT implementation projects, such as that of MeyGen, the risks of

ecosystem stressors outlined in the SEA can be managed in the SMPTE in

accordance with the ALARP principal (Marine Scotland, 2015c).

134) What is the economic and technical feasibility of the proposed management

options in terms of implementation, enforcement and integration into

operational activities?

The economic and technical feasibility of the proposed management options in terms

of implementation, enforcement and integration into operational activities has not

been quantified by the SMPTE process.

135) Are the management measures SMART?

While the management measures are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Realistic, Time-bound) in that they plan for a monitoring and review period in two-

year time intervals suggested in the SMPTE consultation draft, with the discovery of

any criteria evoking a change in the SMPTE becoming subject to formal consultation

and reporting, there is a lack of clarity and solidity on how management measures

will be undertaken, the quantification of detrimental impacts that will deem tidal

development projects no longer sustainable and acceptable, and the quantification of

development objectives to be achieved.

5.6.2. Management Options Costs, Benefits and Feasibility

Management options – ecosystem benefits:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P3

o QOP = T1

Management options – cultural and societal implications:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P3

o QOP = T4, T8

Management options – economic options:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P3

o QOP = T2, T3

62

Management options – legal and policy repercussions:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P3

o QOP = T5, T6

136) What are the indicators and thresholds used to forecast the ecosystem

benefits as a result of implementing the management options?

The ecosystem benefits resulting from the implementation of the SMPTE

management options include the assistance that TCT implementation will provide in

helping Scotland transition into a carbon-free nation and therefore assisting in the

mitigation of global climate change (Marine Scotland, 2013a). The criteria to indicate

this outcome consists of the amount of current GHG emission reductions displaced

by the implementation of TCTs via the aggregate electricity generated.

137) What are the operating procedures and standards that will need to be updated

as a result of implementing the management options?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the two-year monitoring and review

period suggested in the SMPTE consultation draft will inform the environmental,

ecological, social, and economic interactions arising from commercial-scale TCT

implementation and allow operating procedures put in place for the current plan to be

updated as information becomes available (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

138) What are the costs of implementation as a result of implementing the

management options in terms of training, equipment acquisition, changes to

procedures, and impacts on production efficiency?

The costs of implementing the management options such as training, equipment

acquisition, changes to procedures, and impacts on production efficiency have not

been quantified for the SMPTE.

139) What are the criteria used to assess and classify the level of social demand,

acceptance and/or tolerance?

Social demand, acceptance, and/or tolerance have not been classified to a

discernable level, however, this id due to the strategic nature of the SMPTE and the

fact that social sciences do not demand the quantification of human emotion. The

63

SMPTE process is structured to engage all relevant stakeholders from the pre-

statutory consultation stage through to the post-adoption statement, with input being

garnered between two-year planned review and monitoring reports suggested in the

consultation draft undertaken and published as required (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

140) What is the legislative and regulatory framework under which the

management options would be implemented?

Under the management framework stipulated in the NMP, the SMPTE legislative and

regulatory framework is bounded by the Marine Scotland Act 2010 and the Marine

and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

141) What are the policy and program of the competent authorities that will need

to be updated or changed as a result of implementing the management

measures?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the updating of policies and programs

resulting from the implementation of management measures undertaken by MS can

not yet be determine, although the two-year monitoring and review period will inform

any necessary alterations required in the political framework as information becomes

available (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

142) What are the criteria and consultation processes used to demonstrate how the

management measures reduce risks to traditional, cultural, social, and

economic ecosystem services?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, the criteria and consultation

processes used to demonstrate how the management measures reduce risks to

traditional, cultural, social, and economic ecosystem services has yet to be

determined by the SMPTE process. However, monitoring and review of the SMPTE

will be conducted in two-year time intervals as suggested in the consultation draft,

with the discovery of any criteria evoking a change in the SMPTE becoming subject

to formal consultation and reporting being published and made publically available

(Marine Scotland, 2013a).

64

5.6.3. Marine Spatial Plan

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P2, P7

o QOP = T1-10

143) What is the process that the MSP Competent Authority must follow to obtain

approval for the implementation of the marine spatial plan?

As the acting CA, MS must follow the SMP process detailed in Section 3.2. in order

to obtain approval for Scottish Ministers’ for the implementation of SMPTE final plan

options (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

144) What is the process that the other competent authority must follow to obtain

approval for the implementation of the marine spatial plan?

MS is the sole CA for Scotland’s SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

145) What is the type of agreement needed to implement the marine spatial plan to

ensure accountability of the competent authorities and industry stakeholders?

The legislative agreement required to implement the SMPTE to ensure accountability

of MS and industry stakeholders is derived from the Marine Scotland Act 2010 and

the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 which delegate MS as the CA for the NMP

and devolve marine planning matters of UK’s EEZ to Scottish Parliament

respectively (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Together, these legislative agreements

coincide to formulate the NMP, from which the SMPTE’s policies must conform to,

which regulates the activities of industry stakeholders in the management area and

facilitates engagement of industry stakeholders in the SMP process.

146) Who is accountable for reporting on the implementation of the marine spatial

plan?

MS, as the acting CA, is accountable for reporting on the implementation of the

SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

147) What are the human and financial resource implications for the

implementation of the marine spatial plan from the perspective of the

governance structure, secretariat, competent authorities and industry

stakeholders?

65

The human and financial resources have been quantified and documented by the

financing division of the SG within MS (Interview, 2016).

148) What are the complaints and feedback procedures once the marine spatial

plan has been implemented?

Monitoring and review of the SMPTE will be conducted in two-year time intervals as

suggested in the consultation draft, with the discovery of any criteria evoking a

change in the SMPTE becoming subject to formal consultation and reporting being

published and made publically available, at which point, MS will allow for all relevant

stakeholder input on the performance of the SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.7. Monitoring and Review

Drawing upon the ISO 31000 risk management standard, monitoring and review is

defined as the process of continuously checking, supervising, and observing the risk

management plan in order to determine if the plan remains suitable to achieve its

objectives, and the broader MSP development and environmental objectives, over

an unremitting timescale (Cormier et al., 2015).

5.7.1. Marine Spatial Plan Implementation

Function

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T5, T6

149) What is the work plan for the implementation of the marine spatial plan?

Following Scottish Ministers’ adoption of the finalized SMPTE, and the release of a

post-adoption statement, MS will implement project licensing for tidal energy

development proposals for adopted plan options, as legislated under the Marine

Scotland Act 2010 (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

150) Who is responsible for oversight, direction and reporting as to the

implementation of the marine spatial plan?

MS, as the acting CA, is responsible for oversight, direction, and reporting regarding

the implementation of the SMPTE (Interview, 2016b).

66

5.7.2. Compliance Verification and Auditing

Compliance verification:

Function

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T5

Conformity performance audits:

Function

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T2

MSP performance reports:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T10

151) What are the compliance verification procedures to determine compliance of

the regulated parties?

The compliance verification procedures employed to determine compliance of the

regulated parties with respect to the SMPTE manifested through compliance of the

SMPTE with the policy tools and objectives of the NMP in which the SMPTE must be

consistent with, in conjunction with the marine licensing manual and any post-

consent monitoring strategies (Interview, 2016).

152) Who are the competent authorities that have the necessary jurisdiction to

conduct compliance verification?

MS, as the sole acting CA, has the necessary jurisdiction to conduct compliance

verification for the SMPTE (Interview, 2016b).

153) What are the regulated activities of the drivers that are regulated under the

marine spatial plan?

The regulated activities of drivers operating within the SMPTE management area are

regulated under the NMP. The specific spatial and temporal uses of such activities

are identified in the scoping stage of the SMPTE and taken into consideration

through out the entire SMPTE process in order to select the most suitable

commercial plan option areas (Interview, 2016b).

67

154) Who is accountable for initiating conformity or performance audits?

MS, as the sole acting CA, is accountable for initiating conformity or performance

audits of the SMPTE under the framework of the NMP, with the Scottish Ministers’

post-adoption statement in conjunction with the two-year review and monitoring

process suggested by the SMPTE consultation draft acting as the defacto audit

process (Interview, 2016b).

155) How are joint audit process initiated and under what agreement?

MS, as the sole acting CA, is accountable for initiating conformity or performance

audits of the SMPTE under the framework of the NMP, with the Scottish Ministers’

post-adoption statement in conjunction with the two-year review and monitoring

process suggested in the SMPTE consultation draft acting as the defacto audit

process. Therefore, there are no joint audit processes for the SMPTE (Interview,

2016b).

156) What is the conformity and performance audit framework?

MS, as the sole acting CA, is accountable for initiating conformity or performance

audits of the SMPTE under the framework of the NMP, with the Scottish Ministers’

post-adoption statement in conjunction with the two-year review and monitoring

process suggested in the SMPTE consultation draft acting as the defacto audit

process (Interview, 2016b).

157) Who is accountable for preparing the audit report and responding to the

findings?

MS, as the sole acting CA, is accountable for preparing the audit report for the

SMPTE and responding to the findings under the framework of the NMP, with the

Scottish Ministers’ post-adoption statement in conjunction with the two-year review

and monitoring process acting as the defacto audit process (Interview, 2016b).

158) What is the formal approval process to initiate an audit and request corrective

action plans?

MS, as the sole acting CA, formally approves the audit initiation process and request

for corrective action plans for the SMPTE under the framework of the NMP, with the

Scottish Ministers’ post-adoption statement in conjunction with the two-year review

and monitoring process acting suggested in the SMPTE consultation draft as the

68

defacto audit process (Interview, 2016b).

159) How will the MSP performance report be communicated and made available

to all participants of the MSP plan?

Monitoring and review of the SMPTE will be undertaken by MS in two-year time

intervals AS suggested in the consultation draft, with the discovery of any criteria

evoking a change in the SMPTE becoming subject to formal consultation and

reporting being published and made publically available (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.7.3. Ecosystem Status and Trends Monitoring

Monitor ecosystem status and trends:

Function

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T1

Ecosystem status and trends report:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T10

160) Who is accountable for implementing the ecosystem monitoring program and

conducting the data collection and analysis?

MS, as the acting CA, is accountable for implementing the ecosystem monitoring

program and conducting the data collection and analysis, while individual project

developers are responsible for conducting EIAs and implementing site specific

monitoring programs for their developments (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

161) How are the management measures of the marine spatial plan linked to the

ecosystem monitoring activities?

Management measures of the SMPTE are inherently intertwined with ecosystem

monitoring activities, as the strategic aims of the SMPTE are to maximize the

aggregate installed capacity of tidal energy in Scotland, facilitate enhanced

economic development, investment, and employment, and minimize adverse

implication on people, other sectors, and the environment (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

69

162) What are indicators used to monitor the environmental effects occurring at the

ecosystem level?

Indicators used by the SMPTE to monitor the environmental effects occurring at the

ecosystem level include baseline ecosystem data collected for the SEA categorized

as biodiversity, flora, and fauna, population and human health, water and the marine

environment, marine geology and coastal processes, historic environment, and

landscape and seascape (see the SEA report for details) (Marine Scotland, 2015c).

163) What are the threshold and criteria to ascertain the effectiveness of the

management measures of the marine spatial plan at achieving the

management outcomes?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, thresholds and criteria to ascertain

the effectiveness of the management measures of the SMPTE in achieving the

management outcomes have yet to be determined. However, MS will employ a

deploy and monitor scenario as tidal development draft plan areas are given consent

in order to determine the impact of drivers on ecosystem components and/or

processes, incrementally gathering information to better quantify the success or

failure of management measures (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

164) What resources are available to conduct the ecosystem monitoring program?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, resources available to conduct the

ecosystem monitoring program have not been quantified.

165) Are the results biased by other sources of risk not covered by the marine

spatial plan or are they biased by ecological change?

Although individual commercial-scale TCT test results have been obtained from

various developers and EMEC, there is currently a lack of ecosystem monitoring

results with respect to commercial-scale TCT array deployment of which the

MeyGen project will be the first. However, the monitoring results of the SMPTE are

not formulated to be biased toward any criterion, rather, the environmental,

ecological, social, and economic impacts outlined in the sustainability appraisal

report are designed to be weighted as appropriate to each tidal energy development

70

as consent is granted and project leases are permitted.

166) Who is accountable for preparing the ecosystem status and trends report and

responding to the findings?

MS, as the acting CA, is accountable for preparing the ecosystem status and trends

report and responding to the findings in two-year time intervals suggested in the

SMPTE consultation draft (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

167) How will the ecosystem status and trends reports be communicated and

made available to all participants of the MSP plan?

Monitoring and review of the SMPTE will be undertaken by MS in two-year time

intervals as suggested in the SMPTE consultation draft, with the discovery of any

criteria evoking a change in the SMPTE becoming subject to formal consultation and

reporting being published and made publically available (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

5.7.4. Cultural and Socio-Economic Monitoring

Cultural and social trends:

Function

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T4, T9

Sector economic performance:

Function

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T3

Cultural socio-economic reports:

Inputs or outputs

o QMO = P5

o QOP = T10

168) Who is accountable for monitoring the cultural and socio-performance of the

marine spatial plan?

MS, as the sole acting CA, is accountable for monitoring the cultural and socio-

performance of the SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

71

169) What are indicators used to monitor the cultural trends and the socio-

economic performance of the marine spatial plan?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, no socio-economic assessment

monitoring has been constructed at the moment, therefore, no indicators of socio-

economic performance monitoring have been developed and finalized. However,

monitoring and review of the SMPTE will be conducted in two-year time intervals as

suggested in the consultation draft, with the discovery of any criteria evoking a

change in the SMPTE becoming subject to formal consultation and reporting being

published and made publically available (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

170) What human and financial resources are available to conduct these analyses?

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal plan devised in the world, no socio-economic assessment monitoring

has been constructed at the moment, therefore no agenda for the allotment of

human and financial resources have been developed and finalized.

171) Who is accountable for preparing the cultural and socio-economic reports and

responding to the findings?

MS, as the sole acting CA, is accountable for preparing the cultural and socio-

economic reports and responding to the findings of the SMPTE (Marine Scotland,

2013a).

172) How will these reports be communicated and made available to all

participants of the MSP plan?

The final socio-economic assessment report for the SMPTE has been published and

made publically available. However, due to the early stages of SMPTE

implementation, the pre-commercial stage in which TCT implementation currently

resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal plan devised in the world,

no socio-economic assessment monitoring has been constructed at the moment.

72

5.7.5. Marine Spatial Plan Periodic Review

Function

o QMO = P7

o QOP = T1-10

173) What is the schedule for the review of the plan?

At this early stage, it is suggested that the SMPTE is reviewed every two years as

suggested in the consultation draft (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

174) Is the MSP competent authority accountable to initiate and perform the

review?

MS, as the acting CA, is accountable to initiate and perform the review of the

SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

175) What is the formal approval process to initiate the review?

The SMPTE suggests that a monitoring and review process be initiated by MS every

two years (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Although this remains a suggestion due to the

early stages of SMPTE implementation, however, legislation guiding the NMP in

which the SMPTE must be consistent with dictates a review period of every five

years at the minimum. The current monitoring and review timeline is dependent on

results stemming from the scientific and technical assessments which suggest the

current plan option areas are unacceptably conflicting with the marine environment

and other users of the marine environment within the SMPTE management areas,

demand from relevant stakeholders and Scottish Ministers to undertake a further

process to identify new plan option areas, and the need to review in line with the five-

year legislated monitoring and review period of the NMP in which the SMPTE must

be in consistent with (Interview, 2016b).

176) Who has the authority to make changes to the marine spatial plan?

MS, as the acting CA, has the authority to make changes to the SMPTE (Marine

Scotland, 2013a).

73

177) What is the selection process to identify a review team? What are their

qualifications?

MS members appointed to the NMP monitoring and review team are delegated as

the monitoring and review team for the SMPTE (Interview, 2016b).

178) Are the reviewers “independent” from the approvers?

MS acts as the reviewers of the SMPTE while approvers are Scottish Ministers,

therefore, reviews are approvers are independent bodies from one another, thereby

reducing biased and conflict of interest (Interview, 2016b).

6. Results and Discussion

A quality review of Scotland’s SMPTE against the ICES MSP QMS QMC

demonstrates a 79.5% conformity with best practice standards as set out in the ICES

document, scoring 140/176, with two neutral scores. Answers drawn from the

SMPTE pertaining to questions emanating from the QMC were considered to be in

conformity if the SMPTE could demonstrate that the appropriate internal and/or

external organizations could be aligned to stated roles within the SMPTE process,

and if inputs and outputs and/or functions of the SMPTE process took into

consideration the criteria put forth in the ICES document. However, as the purpose

of this paper is to undertake a quality review of the SMPTE in accordance with the

ICES MSP QMS, it must be acknowledged that the ICES document is not free from

criticism itself, and the 79.5% conformity ranking is only in relation to this document

rather than a general quality review of the SMPTE against numerous best practice

MSP policy guideline documents (e.g. UNESCO’s Marine spatial planning: A step by

step approach toward ecosystem based management, the European Commission’s

MSP Directive (2014/89/EU), etc.). This consideration is especially pertinent as the

SMPTE is not a contemporary MSP in and of itself, rather, it is a sectoral plan siting

the most strategic location for tidal energy development within Scottish waters with

the broader intent of informing Scotland’s NMP. Therefore, the following subsections

provide the ranking percentage breakdown for each section and subsection of the

ICES QMC.

A colour legend (Table 2) has been applied to figures 4-10 demonstrating the

conformity ranking of the various components analyzed, as well as the broader

context of the QMS system itself (e.g. establishing the external context). For

example, Figure 5 depicts a deep blue box labeled “industry stakeholders”, with an

arrow pointing from said box into the direction of a dark purple box labeled

74

“consultation and feedback process”, which then produces an arrow directed towards

a deep purple box labeled “governance body”. The arrows signify what components

inform others within the broader context of the QMS system being analyzed. The

example provided would suggest that industry stakeholders (deep purple) have been

well established and feed into the consultation and feedback process, however, the

consultation and feedback process (red) is weak, and although it feeds into a well

structured governance body (deep purple), there may be gaps or issues present in

the function of the governance body as the function of the consultation and feedback

process derived from industry stakeholders is weak.

75

Table 2

SMPTE – ICES MSP QMS conformity key

76

77

6.1. Establishing the External Context (Figure 4)

The SMPTE demonstrated a 50% conformance ranking in relation to the ICES QMC

specific to establishing the external context, scoring 3/6, plus one neutral score. This

represents the lowest conformity ranking amongst all seven sections of the ICES

QMC. There were no questions listed in the ICES QMC under Public policy

governance, and, therefore, a neutral score was given. Regarding questions listed in

the QMC under Marine development public policy agenda, a ranking of 66.7% was

attributed, scoring 2/3, as the SMPTE identifies public policies and strategic aims of

the SMPTE, and goals, objectives, and timeframes for stakeholder involvement.

However, goals, objectives and timeframes of the industry and community

stakeholders have not been published. Although the SMPTE does account for the

thorough involvement of all relevant stakeholders throughout the SMPTE process,

from pre-statutory consultation through to monitoring and review, with the post

adoption statement publishing how stakeholder input was used with the development

of the SMPTE, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest that industry and community

stakeholder goals and objectives be established and published at the beginning of

the engagement process in order to refer to a definitive baseline upon which set

timeframes can demonstrate the evolution of stakeholder input, thereby providing for

a more transparent, accountable, and defensible engagement process (Cormier et

al., 2015).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Ecosystem protection public policy

agenda, a ranking of 33.3% was attributed, scoring 1/3, as, although the SMPTE

identifies applicable environmental legislation related to the safeguarding of marine

ecosystem features and services, ecosystem management indicators and targets

have not been explicitly defined. Furthermore, ecosystem boundaries have not been

employed within the siting of plan option areas. Although biological conservation

areas such as SACs and SPAs under the Natura 2000 belt have been allotted high

constraint rankings, there is no mention of consideration given to specific ecosystem

boundaries within the SMPTE.

This later finding can be viewed from two different lenses. The first lens is that the

SMPTE is strategic in nature and its construction is predicated on the notion of

informing the strategic siting of tidal energy development within the broader context

of the NMP, and, therefore, due to the site specific nature of commercial TCT

deployment, the identification of ecosystem boundaries is either redundant or should

be left to the broader NMP process. The second lens is that this is an error in the

SMPTE process, as models suggest that commercial scale TCT deployment, if not

sited properly and/or if individual TCTs are situated too close within an array,

78

excessive blockage ratios extracting over 25% of the available kinetic energy flux

can alter natural hydrology patterns (Bryden, Couch, Owen, & Melville, 2007) and

cause sediment deposition in the far field (Ahmadian, Falconer, & Bockelmann-

Evans, 2012), thereby effecting the larger marine ecosystem up and downstream.

However, due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial

stage in which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the

first sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, this issue surrounding the

absence of ecosystem boundaries in the SMPTE in relation to far-field effects can be

defended by the deploy and monitor scenario adopted by MS in conjunction with the

suggested two-year monitoring and review period of the SMPTE (Marine Scotland,

2013a).

79

80

6.2. Establishing the Internal Context (Figure 5)

The SMPTE demonstrated an 84.5% conformance ranking in relation to the ICES

QMC specific to establishing the internal context, scoring 60/71 plus one neutral

score. This represents the third highest conformity ranking amongst all seven

sections of the ICES QMC. Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Marine

planning legislation, policies, and authorities, a ranking of 100% was attributed,

scoring 5/5, as the SMPTE clearly defines the national, regional, and international

legislation and policies required to scope, develop, and implement the plan, as well

as the CA and their responsibility and accountability. Regarding questions listed in

the QMC under Ecosystem legislation, policies, and authorities, a ranking of 100%

was attributed, scoring 5/5, as the SMPTE clearly defines the national, regional, and

international legislation and policies pertaining to the ecological context of the plan,

as well as the CA and their responsibility and accountability. Regarding questions

listed in the QMC under Competent authorities, a ranking of 100% was attributed,

scoring 2/2, as the SMPTE clearly defines MS as the CA and their responsibilities

and accountabilities.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Industry stakeholders, a ranking of

100% was attributed, scoring 3/3, as the SMPTE clearly defines the representative

organizations operation within the management area, the legislative and policy

framework managing such industry stakeholders, and how industry representatives

are appointed. Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Communities of

interest, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 3/3, as the SMPTE clearly defines

who communities of interest are, how community representatives are appointed, and

their geographical location in relation to the SMPTE management area.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Consultation and feedback process, a

ranking of 0% was attributed, scoring 0/4, as the consultation and feedback

procedures for members of MS in relation to the SMPTE are not formally structured,

rather, they occur on an as needed basis. Furthermore, record keeping and

communication do not follow any formal requirements or standardized procedures.

While such findings may demonstrate a testament to the tight-knit coordination and

dynamic operation of MS, as one could argue is intrinsic to MSP due to the multi-

disciplinary nature of the MSP process, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest that a

more structured approach towards undertaking, documenting, and sharing

consultation and feedback within MS is required in order to mimic best practices and

facilitate a more concise method of disseminating information (Cormier et al., 2015).

In this case, it is advised that MS develop a formally structured consultation and

81

feedback process internal to MS where filing systems and communication tools (e.g.

secure forums) are specific to the SMPTE process.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Public, a ranking of 100% was

attributed, scoring 1/1, as the SMPTE clearly defines the public constituencies that

should be consulted in the SMPTE process. Regarding questions listed in the QMC

under Public communication procedures, a ranking of 75% was attributed, scoring

3/4, as the SMPTE defines the public communication plan, the tools used to

communicate key decisions to the public, the approval process of the communication

structure, and the controls in place to disseminate key decisions to the public.

However, there is no formal legislated appeal process in place for members of the

public to refute a misunderstood, unaccepted, and/or intolerable decision. The ICES

MSP QMS would suggest that such an appeal process be put in place, although it

could be argued that ongoing stakeholder participation beginning from the pre-

statutory consultation stage through to the consultation analysis report (Marine

Scotland, 2013a) allows for ample opportunity for public input during various stages

of the SMPTE process, thereby negating the need for an appeal process on a

specific decision as the SMPTE framework is in constant flux and can be

continuously challenged and altered.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Scientific and technical advisory

bodies, a ranking of 66.7% was attributed, scoring 2/3, as the SMPTE defines the

scientific and technical bodies that are referred to for advice, as well as legal

advisory bodies, and demonstrates the processes in place to ensure that conflicts of

interest between experts and stakeholders are avoided and dealt with as needed.

Due to the pre-commercial stage in which TCTs currently reside, resulting in the fact

that Scotland’s SMPTE is the first of its kind, BATs for ecosystem, social, economic,

and policy bodies have yet to be devised, and therefore a neutral ranking was

applied to the relevant question. However, there are no obligatory terms of

reference or accreditation to demonstrate the quality of expertise for MS employees.

In relation to the ICES QMS, the document would suggest that standardized

accrediting bodies be established or existing ones incorporated into the selection

process of technical and scientific advisors in order to insure their competence in

their respective fields (Cormier et al., 2015), similarly to how the expertise of

professional planners are validated through accreditation under their province of

practice in Canada (PSB, 2016).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Scientific and technical advisory

process, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 4/4, as the SMPTE clearly

identified the source and reliability of information employed to formulate scientific

82

and technical advice, the metadata used to validate advise, the process to set the

terms of references and questions to be answered by the advisory bodies, and the

advisory process approval authority and Chair. Regarding questions listed in the

QMC under Governance body, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 2/2, as the

SMPTE clearly identifies the governance structure needed to address the legislative

implications, ecological considerations, development priorities, and community

concerns, as well as the agreements or memorandum of understandings needed to

create the governance structure.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Governance terms of reference, a

ranking of 33.3% was attributed, scoring 2/6, as, although the SMPTE identifies the

CA in the terms of reference, and processes are set in place to connect political

leaders to the SMPTE governance structure, there is no formal structure to

incorporate a specified number of members within decision-making quorums or to

reach a consensus on recommendations, and there is no formal communication

structure or response timeframe. The ICES MSP QMS would suggest that a set

number of members be allocated to inform decisions within the governance

structure, which can potentially manifest in the form of an elected decision making

quorum, as well as employing formal communication structures and timeframes in

order to provide consistency and confidence in the decision making process

(Cormier et al., 2015).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Governance business rules, a ranking

of 100% was attributed, scoring 5/5, as the SMPTE clearly identifies how advice and

feedback from relevant industry and community stakeholders is taken into

consideration, how recommendations follow the established decision-making

protocols and are aligned with the public policy agenda, how the recommendation

process is approved and by whom, and the delegation instruments employed by MS

as the sole acting CA. Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Marine spatial

planning risk criteria, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 4/4, as the SMPTE

clearly identifies the criteria used to assess the severity of impacts from an

opportunities and constraints approach, how such criteria was established and

validated, and the risks perceived by all relevant stakeholders, all of which are

described in plain language via a non-technical summary.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Ecosystem management outcomes, a

ranking of 75% was attributed, scoring 3/4, as the SMPTE identifies how ecosystem

management outcomes can be achieved in the management area and how

ecosystem management measures outside the SMPTE management area that may

interact with processes within the SMPTE management area are taken into

83

consideration in the broader NMP, all of which are described in plain language via a

non-technical summary. However, due to the early stages of SMPTE

implementation, the pre-commercial stage in which TCT implementation currently

resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the

world, ecosystem boundaries have not been defined in relation to the SMPTE

management area, therefore, ecosystem management outcomes are not aligned

with ecosystem boundaries and significant ecosystem features (Marine Scotland,

2013a).

With regards to this issue, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest that ecosystem

boundaries be defined in order to better quantify far-field ecological impacts which

could possibly be challenged and, therefore, hinder the deployment of commercial-

scale TCT arrays and subsequently Scotland’s GHG emissions reductions targets as

well (Cormier et al., 2015). However, the management process of the SMPTE in

relation to far-field effects can be defended by the deploy and monitor scenario

adopted by MS in conjunction with the suggested two-year monitoring and review

period of the SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Furthermore, it should be noted that

that the SMPTE is strategic in nature and its construction is predicated on the notion

of informing the strategic siting of tidal energy development within the broader

context of the NMP, and therefore, due to the site specific nature of commercial TCT

deployment, the identification of ecosystem boundaries is either redundant or should

be left to the broader NMP process.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Marine spatial planning management

outcomes, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 5/5, as the SMPTE clearly

identifies how SMPTE management outcomes align with industry sector

development priorities, reconcile the needs of industry with the public and

communities of interests, how management outcomes can be achieved within the

management area, how they are influenced by activities outside the management

area, and how this is taken into consideration within the NMP, all of which is

described in plain language via a non-technical summary.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under MSP secretariat, a ranking of 90.9%

was attributed, scoring 10/11, as the SMPTE identifies how and where information is

stored, the information and document management system, how versions are

maintained and controlled, the security requirements to access and safeguard

information, the MSP secretariat, the copyright or proprietary requirements of the

data and information submitted to the advisory processes, the filing plans for

documents, the file retention period and requirements for documents, the privacy

and accesses to information requirements for documents, and the system used to

84

track the human and financial resources. However, there is no single member of MS

who is responsible for the management of information pertaining to the SMPTE,

rather, individual SG employees are responsible for managing their own individual

information which they produced. The ICES MSP QMS would suggest that, in order

to make the MSP secretariat structure more secure, accountable, accessible, and

reliable, an individual or individuals must be delegated the responsibility to managing

all documents produced in relation to the SMPTE (Cormier et al., 2015).

85

86

6.3. Risk Identification (Figure 6)

The SMPTE demonstrated a 69.6% conformance ranking in relation to the ICES

QMC specific to risk identification, scoring 16/23. This represents the third lowest

conformity ranking amongst all seven sections of the ICES QMC. Regarding

questions listed in the QMC under Significant ecosystem components, a ranking of

57.1% was attributed, scoring 4/7, as the SMPTE identifies the criteria employed to

identify significant ecosystem features, how these criteria were established and

validated, and the methods used to conduct the risk identification. However, due to

the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in which TCT

implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal

energy plan devised in the world, ecosystem boundaries have not been defined in

relation to the SMPTE management area, therefore, criteria were not established in

relation to them. Furthermore, the zone of influence of the activities of drivers

operating outside the management area are not specified in detail within the SMPTE,

the detailed supporting documents published to inform the SMPTE construction and

adoption process, the NMP, and the detailed supporting documents published to

inform the NMP construction and adoption process.

With regards to this issue, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest that ecosystem

boundaries be defined via the establishment of specified criteria in order to better

quantify far-field ecological impacts which could possibly be challenged and

therefore hinder the deployment of commercial-scale TCT arrays and subsequently

Scotland’s GHG emissions reductions targets as well (Cormier et al., 2015).

Furthermore, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest that the activities of drivers

operating outside the management area be specified within the SMPTE in order to

account for the influence of external drivers on the activities occurring within the

SMPTE management area. However, the management process of the SMPTE in

relation to far-field effects can be defended by the deploy and monitor scenario

adopted by MS in conjunction with the suggested two-year monitoring and review

period of the SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a). Furthermore, it should be noted that

that the SMPTE is strategic in nature and its construction is predicated on the notion

of informing the strategic siting of tidal energy development within the broader

context of the NMP, and, therefore, due to the site specific nature of commercial TCT

deployment, the identification of ecosystem boundaries is either redundant or should

be left to the broader NMP process.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Significant ecosystem services, a

ranking of 60% was attributed, scoring 3/5, as the SMPTE identifies the criteria

employed to identify significant traditional, social, and economic ecosystem services,

87

as well as the vulnerability of such ecosystem services in relation to drivers operating

within and outside the SMPTE management area. However, ecosystem services

have not been quantified by the SMPTE process, therefore, they could not be

validated by relevant community stakeholders and the human capital to produce

societal benefits related to ecosystem services could not be measured. The ICES

MSP QMS would suggest that such ecosystem services need to be quantified in

order to provide a magnitude rating which can better measure the potential for risks

early in the risk identification stage (Cormier et al., 2015).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Significant driver activities and

pressures, a ranking of 75% was attributed, scoring 3/4, as the SMPTE identifies the

current and future activities of drivers related to the management area, the process

to identify new emerging drivers, and the pressures generated from the activities of

drivers. However, there is no quantifiable criteria employed to select significant

drivers within the SMPTE management area. The ICES MSP QMS would suggest

that employing such criteria could possibly help scope the potential for risk, prioritize

the severity of risk to a degree acceptable at the early risk identification stage, and

set a standard for identifying risks so that they are not left out of the eventual risk

register, subsequently eliminating them from the entire resulting risk management

process (Cormier et al., 2015).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Management area regulatory

requirements, a ranking of 75% was attributed, scoring 3/4, as the SMPTE identifies

national, regional, and international legislation pertaining to drivers operating within

the management area. However, while the location of drivers operating within the

SMPTE management area are listed in the socio-economic assessment, a more

refined analysis of the location and occupation rate of drivers is left until site specific

licensing is granted to an application for commercial-scale TCT deployment.

Although this method may save time and resources by avoiding the repetitive micro-

scale assessment of a specific site, as individual EIAs are legislated under the

Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest

that identifying detailed risks at an early stage can help scope the potential for risk,

prioritize the severity of risk to a degree acceptable at the early risk identification

stage, and set a standard for identifying risks so that they are not left out of the

eventual risk register, subsequently eliminating them from the entire resulting risk

management process (Cormier et al., 2015).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Risk Profile, a ranking of 100% was

attributed, scoring 3/3, as the SMPTE clearly identifies consultation and feedback

procedures between MS as the acting CA and industry and community stakeholders

88

in relation to the risk identification stage and verification protocols to ensure the risk

profile is linked to management outcomes, all of which are described in plain

language via a non-technical summary.

89

90

6.4. Risk Analysis (Figure 7)

The SMPTE demonstrated an 73.3% conformance ranking in relation to the ICES

QMC specific to risk analysis, scoring 11/15. This represents the middle range

conformity ranking amongst all seven sections of the ICES QMC. Regarding

questions listed in the QMC under Cause and effect analysis, a ranking of 20% was

attributed, scoring 1/5, as, although the SMPTE identifies the ecosystem

components or processes that would be altered or degraded as a result of the

pressures occurring from the activities of the drivers, the pressure-activity-state

change-impact chain, duration and trajectory of recovery, feasibility of mitigation or

restoration strategies, and methods used to conduct cause and effect analysis have

not been quantified. The ICES MSP QMS would suggest that such methods

categorized under the cause and effect analysis umbrella be quantified in order to

establish a measurable change in ecosystem function relative to identified baselines

(Cormier et al., 2015), although, due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation,

the pre-commercial stage in which TCT implementation currently resides, and the

SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, this is not

yet a possibility, and the current deploy and monitor scenario adopted by MS in

conjunction with the suggested two-year monitoring and review period of the SMPTE

will have to suffice at this time.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Impacts, consequences, and

repercussions, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 7/7, as the SMPTE clearly

identifies the ecosystem features and process that may be altered or degraded by

activities introduced by drivers operating within the management area, traditional,

cultural and social consequences if a given ecosystem service is impacted by

pressures or changes, societal benefits impacted by ecosystem alteration, the size of

the community or electorate that would react to the consequences, potential

economic losses or liabilities, strategic or international repercussions, and applicable

conflict resolution appeal processes. Regarding questions listed in the QMC under

Risk matrix, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 3/3, as the SMPTE clearly

identifies the contributions of the various causes integrated to determine

management priorities, criteria employed to classify the likelihood and extent of the

events and consequences, and the validation of the severity of risk.

91

92

6.5. Risk Evaluation (Figure 8)

The SMPTE demonstrated a 93.3% conformance ranking in relation to the ICES

QMC specific to risk evaluation, scoring 14/15. This represents the highest

conformity ranking amongst all seven sections of the ICES QMC. Regarding

questions listed in the QMC under Management measures evaluations, a ranking of

100% was attributed, scoring 4/4, as the SMPTE clearly identifies the criteria used to

evaluate and classify the effectiveness and feasibility of the management options,

how management measures were derived from the inputs of all relevant

stakeholders, methods used to identify the existing legislations, regulations,

directives, policies, best management practices, and standard operating procedures,

and how the evaluation of management measures is conducted and documented.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Existing management measures

acceptable for the marine spatial plan, a ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 3/3,

as the SMPTE clearly identifies legal, policy, strategic, and international liabilities

and repercussions arising from not achieving the MSP or ecosystem management

outcomes, and the monitoring plans needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the

existing management measures.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under New or enhanced management

measures needed for the marine spatial plan, a ranking of 100% was attributed,

scoring 5/5, as the SMPTE clearly identifies legal, policy, strategic, and international

liabilities and repercussions arising from not achieving the MSP or ecosystem

management outcomes, the monitoring plans needed to evaluate the effectiveness

of the existing, enhanced, or additional management measures, criteria employed to

evaluate the tolerability of risks, and those involved in the evaluation.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Marine spatial risk register, a ranking

of 66.7% was attributed, scoring 2/3, as the SMPTE identifies how the risk register is

maintained, filed, controlled, and made available to relevant stakeholders. However,

due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, there has not been a need as of yet

to review the risk register in order to develop new or enhanced management

measures. Furthermore, no individual MS employee has been delegated with the

responsibility of reviewing and updating the risk register. Even though it is apparent

that the SMPTE and the tidal energy industry is too young to properly address this

question in the QMC, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest that, in order to make the

risk register more secure and accessible, an individual or individuals must be

93

delegated the responsibility of reviewing and updating the risk register of the SMPTE

(Cormier et al., 2015).

94

95

6.6. Risk Treatment (Figure 9)

The SMPTE demonstrated an 62.5% conformance ranking in relation to the ICES

QMC specific to risk treatment, scoring 10/16. This represents the second lowest

conformity ranking amongst all seven sections of the ICES QMC. Regarding

questions listed in the QMC under Spatial and temporal management options, a

ranking of 33.3% was attributed, scoring 1/3, as, although the proposed

management options are able to reduce the risks resulting from failure to achieved

MSP and ecosystem management outcomes to an ALARP level, economic and

technical feasibility of management options related to SMPTE implementation,

enforcement, and integration into operational activities has not been quantified, and

there is a lack of clarity on how management measures will be undertaken.

The ICES MSP QMS would suggest that the economic and technical feasibility of the

SMPTE be quantified in order to bolster an increased sense of confidence, reliability,

transparency, and accountability to the SMPTE process, thereby allowing the

provision of resources to be allocated in a consistent and defensible manner

(Cormier et al., 2015). The transparency offered by the quantification of economic

and technical feasibility, in conjunction with an increased clarity in how management

measures will be undertaken, may provide a decrease in the potential for public

backlash, as opaque plans and management measures pertaining to renewable

energy systems deployment have consistently been a hindrance to the deployment

of such systems in the past, such as the case of a wind farm development in the

Rheinland-Pfalz region of Germany where lack of a transparent planning process

resulted in public lawsuits, thereby delaying the planning process and increasing

costs to local planning authorities (Pendleton, Atiyah, & Moorthy, 2007).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Management options costs, benefits,

and feasibility, a ranking of 42.9% was attributed, scoring 3/7, as, although the

SMPTE identifies the indicators to inform ecosystem benefits, operating procedures

and standards that will need to be updated, as well as the legislative and regulatory

framework under which the management options would be implemented, the costs of

implementing management options has not been quantified. The ICES MSP QMS

would suggest that costs associated to management operation be quantified in order

to allow for the provision of resources to be allocated in a consistent and defensible

manner (Cormier et al., 2015). The transparency offered by this quantification may

provide a decrease in the potential for public backlash, allowing for MS budget

expenditures to be justified to the public if required, therefore garnering an increase

in public trust of regulators and subsequently providing for greater support for

renewable energy adoption (Bronfman, Jiménez, Arévalo, & Cifuentes, 2012).

96

Furthermore, the notion of determining levels of public acceptance itself has not

been taken into consideration in the SMPTE process, which can therefore act in a

synergistic manner with missing ICES QMS criteria such as the lack of quantification

of economic and technical feasibility and implementation costs discussed above,

thereby potentially delaying targeted TCT deployment.

Finally, the SMPTE does not identify the policy and programs that will need to be

updated or changed as a result of implementing the management measures, nor

does it identify the criteria and consultation processes used to demonstrate how the

management measures reduce risks to traditional, cultural, social, and economic

ecosystem services. However, this can be considered less of a gap in quality

management of the SMPTE and more a product of the early stages of SMPTE

implementation, the pre-commercial stage in which TCT implementation currently

resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the

world. As the SMPTE gains more mileage with regards to implementation, the

deploy and monitor regime, in conjunction with the suggested two-year plan review

and monitoring period, such factors can be properly informed and addressed on an

as needed basis.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Marine spatial plan, a ranking of 100%

was attributed, scoring 6/6, as the SMPTE clearly identifies the SMPTE approval

process, accountable authorities, agreements to ensure plan accountability amongst

MS and industry stakeholders, human and financial resource considerations, and

complaints and feedback procedures.

97

98

6.7. Monitoring and Review (Figure 10)

The SMPTE demonstrated an 86.7% conformance ranking in relation to the ICES

QMC specific to monitoring and review, scoring 26/30. This represents the second

highest conformity ranking amongst all seven sections of the ICES QMC. Regarding

questions listed in the QMC under MSP implementation, a ranking of 100% was

attributed, scoring 2/2, as the SMPTE clearly identifies the implementation the work

plan and the associated responsible authority. Regarding questions listed in the

QMC under Compliance verification and auditing, a ranking of 100% was attributed,

scoring 9/9, as the SMPTE clearly identifies procedures to determine compliance of

the regulated parties, the associated responsible and accountable authority, the

regulated activities of drivers, the audit initiation approval process, and how the

report will be communicated and made accessible to relevant stakeholders.

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Ecosystem status and trends

monitoring, a ranking of 75% was attributed, scoring 6/8, as the SMPTE identifies the

associated accountable authority, the link between management measures and

ecosystem monitoring activities, the indicators used to monitor the environmental

effects, and how results will be communicated and made accessible to relevant

stakeholders. However, the SMPTE has not established thresholds and criteria to

ascertain the effectiveness of the management measures, nor does it quantify the

resources available to conduct the ecosystem monitoring program. These issues

can be argued to be a product of the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the

pre-commercial stage in which TCT implementation currently resides, and the

SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, and,

therefore, such monitoring data is yet available. Although, the ICES MSP QMS

would suggest that thresholds and criteria to ascertain the effectiveness of the

management measures be established in order to provide an initial baseline to

measure the expenditure of human, financial, and temporal resources against

(Cormier et al., 2015), a theme in line with the SMPTEs absence of the quantification

of resources available to conduct the ecosystem monitoring program. If included,

such factors may make budget expenditures more defensible, while a thorough and

transparent plan can increase public trust in regulators (Bronfman et al., 2012).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Cultural and socio-economic

monitoring, a ranking of 60% was attributed, scoring 3/5, as the SMPTE identifies the

associated accountable authority and how reports will be communicated and made

accessible to relevant stakeholders. However, the SMPTE has not established

indicators used to monitor cultural trends and the socio-economic performance, nor

does it quantify the human and financial resources available to conduct cultural and

99

socio-economic analysis. These issues can be argued to be a product of the early

stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in which TCT

implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal

energy plan devised in the world, and, therefore, such monitoring data is yet

available. Although, the ICES MSP QMS would suggest that cultural and socio-

economic indicators be established in order to provide an initial baseline to measure

the well-being of communities and their responses to commercial-scale tidal energy

development, while the quantification of resources available to conduct cultural and

socio-economic monitoring may make budget expenditures more defensible

(Cormier et al., 2015), providing for a thorough and transparent plan that can

increase public trust in regulators (Bronfman et al., 2012).

Regarding questions listed in the QMC under Marine spatial plan periodic review, a

ranking of 100% was attributed, scoring 6/6, as the SMPTE clearly identifies

timelines, the associated accountable authority, the approval process, and the

review team.

100

Table 3

ICES MSP QMS component scores and rankings

101

6.8. Summary of Results

Taking the allotted ranking system applied to the SMPTE in relation to its conformity

to the ICES MSP QMS QMC at face value, it can be surmised that the SMPTE has

established a very strong internal context, complete with the appropriate MSP and

ecosystem authorities, legislation, policies, strategic aims, goals, and objectives,

while clearly engaging both internal and external stakeholders. However, the

external context has ranked comparatively weak, although, an in depth analysis

would show that this is only in relation to the strict conformity to the ICES QMC, as

industry and stakeholders have indeed been established. Rather, the decreased

ranking of the establishment of the external context is a result of the absence of

publication and solidification of industry and community stakeholder goals and

objectives under a concrete timeframe. The SMPTE accounts for this by recognizing

that planning is intrinsically a flexible and ongoing communication process between

internals and externals, and is framed as such throughout the SMPTE process.

However, in conformity with the ICES MSP QMS, it is recommended that industry

and community stakeholder goals and objectives should be established and

published at the beginning of the engagement process under a set timeframe in

order to refer to a definitive baseline upon which set timeframes can demonstrate the

evolution of stakeholder input, thereby providing for a more transparent,

accountable, and defensible engagement process.

While ranking strong overall, the establishment of the internal context demonstrates

shortfalls in relation to employing a formalized consultation, feedback,

communication, and decision making process within MS itself. Most consultation,

feedback, communication, and decision making is done so on what can be argued to

be an ad hoc basis, where lack of formalized structure can itself cause confusion,

lack of accountability and reliability, and subsequently affect the external

engagement procedures with industry and community stakeholders (Cormier et al.,

2015). It is recommended that a formalized consultation, feedback, communication,

and decision making regime internal to MS be established with regards to the

SMPTE process.

The establishment of both the external and internal contexts demonstrated an

absence of ecosystem management criteria, with the external context lacking

ecosystem targets and indicators, as well as the lack of identification of ecosystem

boundaries, and the internal context lacking ecosystem management outcomes,

significant ecosystem feature justification, as well as the lack of identification of

ecosystem boundaries. In theory, this can weaken the ecosystem protection agenda

from the very beginning of the SMPTE process, as well as further discussions

102

between internal and external stakeholders pertaining to the status of ecosystem

elements, a factor which is jeopardized further when considering the low ranking

attributed to the internal consultation, feedback, communication, and decision

making processes. It is recommended that the SMPTE strengthen its ecosystem

protection agenda so that internal and external stakeholders can work together to

define significant ecosystem components, and, therefore, potential ecological

interactions between marine species and functions with commercial-scale TCT

deployment will be better understood by the public, which can reduce the potential

for public backlash and subsequent delays in the SMPTE and TCT implementation

process (Alexander, Janssen, Arciniegas, O'Higgins, Eikelboom, & Wilding, 2012).

In relation to conformity to the ICES MSP QMS, the SMPTE demonstrates very weak

risk identification framework, specifically with regards to identifying and quantifying

ecosystem boundaries and services, as well as defining drivers, establishing the

criteria used to validate their significance, and their activities both within and outside

the management area. These factors ultimately feed into the risk profile, and,

therefore, any risks not identified due to the absence of ecosystem context

quantification and driver activity identification will subsequently be excluded from the

risk profile, which in turn eliminates their analysis from the remainder of the SMPTE

process and negates the strength demonstrated by the SMPTE evaluation and

review and monitoring components (Cormier et al., 2015).

It is recommended that the SMPTE quantify ecosystem services and identify

ecosystem boundaries while establishing criteria to determine the significance

allotted to significant drivers and determine the spatial, temporal, and magnitude of

driver activities within and outside the management area that may compromise such

ecosystem services within ecosystem boundaries. Although the SMPTE is strategic

in nature and its construction is predicated on the notion of informing the strategic

siting of tidal energy development within the broader context of the NMP, impacts

resulting from commercial-scale TCT array implementation can potentially alter

natural hydrology patterns (Bryden et al., 2007) and cause sediment deposition in

the far field (Ahmadian et al., 2012), thereby affecting the larger marine ecosystem

up and downstream. However, these issues will have to be informed by the NMP, as

its geographic reach can facilitate the management of ecosystem-scale boundaries.

In relation to conformity to the ICES MSP QMS, the SMPTE demonstrates a sub-par

risk analysis framework. The result of the ranking, however, is mostly in relation to

the strict conformity to the ICES QMC, as gaps concerning the quantification of the

pressure-activity-state change-impact chain, duration and trajectory of recovery,

feasibility of mitigation or restoration strategies, and methods used to conduct cause

103

and effect analysis cannot yet be established due to the early stages of SMPTE

implementation, the pre-commercial stage in which TCT implementation currently

resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the

world. Although, as the SMPTE and the tidal energy industry develop in the near

future, it is recommended that components of the cause and effect analysis be

quantified in order to better inform ecosystem services, impacts and consequences,

economic consequences, driver conflicts, and legal repercussions, and subsequently

the risk profile and significant driver activities and pressures in which cause and

effect analysis components directly feed in to.

In relation to conformity to the ICES MSP QMS, the SMPTE demonstrates a very

strong risk evaluation framework. The only absence discovered in the quality review

was that no individual or group of individuals have been delegated responsibility to

review the risk register. Although the risk register itself is yet in place due to the

early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in which TCT

implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first sectoral tidal

energy plan devised in the world, the lack of delegation of authority to individual MS

employees over consultation, feedback, communication, and decision making

process has become a persistent theme first identified in the establishment of the

internal context. It is, therefore, recommended that an individual or group of

individual MS employees be delegated responsibility to review the risk register in

order to provide for a more structured and accountable SMPTE process.

In relation to conformity to the ICES MSP QMS, the SMPTE demonstrates a very

weak risk treatment framework, meaning that even when risks are identified in the

comparatively weak risk identification process, analyzed, and evaluated in the very

strong risk evaluation process, their treatment may be insufficient and, therefore, the

strong monitoring and review component will have to inform the reiteration of the

several facets of the SMPTE process in a timelier and costlier manner than would be

necessary if risks were appropriately identified from the start. This dilemma has the

potential to evoke a distrust in regulators and spur public backlash (Bronfman et al.,

2012), thereby hindering the commercial deployment of TCT arrays and

subsequently delimit the potential for the SMPTE to meet its strategic aims of

identifying preferred development areas for tidal energy implementation in Scotland,

facilitating enhanced economic development, investment, and employment, and

minimizing adverse implication on people, other sectors, and the environment

(Marine Scotland, 2013a).

Specifically, the SMPTE risk treatment process lacks clarity on how management

options will be undertaken, as the economic and technical feasibility of management

104

options, costs of implementation, and thresholds of public acceptance are not

quantified, while plans and programs that will require updating following

management implementation have yet to be considered. Furthermore, criteria used

to inform consultation processes justifying how management measures may prompt

a reduction in risk pertaining to traditional, cultural, social, and economic ecosystem

services have not been identified. Such management option criteria form an upper

tier foundation which is clearly linked to the output of the SMPTE as a final product.

Therefore, it is recommended that the SMPTE establish criteria to identify economic,

technical, financial, social, traditional, and cultural management options pertaining to

the treatment of risk, and the associated consultation measures to inform such

criteria, in order to effectively alleviate and/or mitigate the potential for risk in relation

to tidal energy development within and outside the SMPTE management area.

In relation to conformity to the ICES MSP QMS, the SMPTE demonstrates a strong

monitoring and review framework. Gaps identified in the monitoring and review

component consist of the lack of identification of criteria to determine the

effectiveness of management measures, particularly pertaining to cultural and socio-

economic indicators and human and financial resource quantification. However, this

is mostly due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial

stage in which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the

first sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, and, therefore, such monitoring

data is yet available. Although, it is recommended that criteria be established to

identify cultural, socio-economic monitoring measures, and the associated human

and financial resources required to implement such measures as the SMPTE and

tidal energy industry develop in the near future, thereby providing a baseline of

cultural and socio-economic thresholds and associated expenditures.

105

Table 4

ICES MSP QMS quality management review recommendations for the SMPTE

Quality Management Review Recommendations

Industry and community stakeholder goals and objectives should be established and published at the beginning of the engagement process under a set timeframe.

A formalized consultation, feedback, communication, and decision making regime internal to MS should be established with regards to the SMPTE process.

The SMPTE should strengthen its ecosystem protection agenda so that internal and external stakeholders can work together to define significant ecosystem components, and therefore potential ecological interactions between marine species and functions with commercial-scale TCT deployment will be better understood by the public.

The SMPTE should quantify ecosystem services and identify ecosystem boundaries while establishing criteria to determine the significance allotted to significant drivers and determine the spatial, temporal, and magnitude of driver activities within and outside the management area that may compromise such ecosystem services within ecosystem boundaries.

Components of the cause and effect analysis should be quantified in order to better inform ecosystem services, impacts and consequences, economic consequences, driver conflicts, and legal repercussions, and subsequently the risk profile and significant driver activities and pressures in which cause and effect analysis components directly feed in to, as the SMPTE and the tidal energy industry develops in the near future.

An individual or group of individual MS employees should be delegated responsibility to review the risk register in order to provide for a more structured and accountable SMPTE process.

The SMPTE should establish criteria to identify economic, technical, financial, social, traditional, and cultural management options pertaining to the treatment of risk, and the associated consultation measures to inform such criteria, in order to effectively alleviate and/or mitigate the potential for risk in relation to tidal energy development within and outside the SMPTE management area.

It is recommended that criteria be established to identify cultural and socio-economic monitoring measures, and the associated human and financial resources required to implement such measures as the SMPTE and tidal energy industry develop in the near future.

7. Conclusion and Future

As coastal communities continue to increase in geographical size and population,

associated economies will have to expand in unison (UN Atlas of the Oceans, 2010).

This relationship gives rise to an increase in user – user and user – environment

conflicts, as economic drivers acting within the marine environment proliferate in

size, number, and intensity (Douvere, 2008). Such factors have acted as drivers to

promote the implementation of MSP in coastal nations with extensive sea uses, such

as that of Scotland’s relationship to the North Sea and the subsequent construction

of their NMP (Marine Scotland, 2014). Another player in the context of MSP has

been the advent of climate change and the negative implications it has and is

projected to have on marine environments and coastal communities, resulting in the

106

promotion of commercial-scale offshore renewable energy uptake in order to

alleviate and/or mitigate the effects of climate change in unison with national GHG

emissions reductions targets, such as that of Scotland’s aim to assist the SG in

achieving GHG emissions reduction targets of 42% below 1990 levels by 2020 and

80% below 1990 levels by 2050, while committing to providing 30% of it’s energy

demand from renewables by 2020, with an interim embedded target of 100%

renewably generated electricity. Such targets, in conjunction with the

acknowledgement of increasing marine user – user and user – environment conflicts

have prompted the SG to produce the worlds first SMPTE (Marine Scotland, 2013a).

Due to the early stages of SMPTE implementation, the pre-commercial stage in

which TCT implementation currently resides, and the SMPTE’s status as the first

sectoral tidal energy plan devised in the world, it is imperative that the SMPTE

process be constructed in such a manner to streamline the licensing and permitting

processes that facilitate the eventual commercial deployment of TCTs, as can be

seen in the implementation of the first commercial TCT array via the MeyGen (2016)

project scheduled for this year. In light of this matter, this paper undertook a quality

management review of Scotland’s SMPTE with criteria set out in the most recently

published MSP best practice guideline document, the ICES MSP QMS.

Overall, the quality review demonstrated a 79.5% compliance ranking of the SMPTE

in relation to the ICES MSP QMS, with risk evaluation, monitoring and review, and

establishment of the internal context framework demonstrating strong conformity,

risk analysis demonstrating sub-par conformity, and risk identification, risk treatment,

and the establishment of the external context demonstrating comparatively low

conformity, respectively. A more in depth analysis reveals that the SMPTE should

establish a formalized consultation, feedback, communication, and decision making

regime internal to MS, quantify ecosystem services, define ecosystem boundaries,

establish criteria to justify the allotment of significant drivers within and outside the

management area, define risk treatment management plans, and provide baseline

estimates for human and financial resource requirements.

The construction of Scotland’s SMPTE can act as a best practice framework in itself

for other nations with tidal current energy potential to base their MSPs around,

whether they are taken in a sectoral context or as a part of a broader national MSP.

Such planning efforts are essential in order to create a governance structure that

facilitates the transition of TCTs from the pre-commercial to the commercial

implementation stage, thereby making them a viable global player to assist the

transition of the world economy from carbon-based to renewables. This quality

review can further inform nations constructing an MSP in relation to tidal energy

development of what factors have been, should be, and must been considered in the

107

development of their plan. The criteria set out in this framework should not only be

limited to sectoral or national tidal energy planning, but can be adopted to inform

broader regional, ecosystem-based, and international MSP collaborations such as

the NorthSEE initiative, in order to set in motion a governance structure and

associated regulatory framework that accounts for environmental, ecological,

economic, social, traditional, and cultural elements pertaining to user – user, user –

environment, and climate change factors related to marine environmental

management.

108

References

Ahmadian, R., Falconer, R., & Bockelmann-Evans, B. (2012). Far-field modelling of

the hydro-environmental impact of tidal stream turbines. Renewable Energy, 38(1),

107-116.

Alexander, K. A., Janssen, R., Arciniegas, G., O'Higgins, T. G., Eikelboom, T., &

Wilding, T. A. (2012). Interactive marine spatial planning: siting tidal energy arrays

around the Mull of Kintyre. PLoS One, 7(1), e30031.

Bronfman, N. C., Jiménez, R. B., Arévalo, P. C., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2012).

Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy

Policy, 46, 246-252.

Bryden, I. G., Couch, S. J., Owen, A., & Melville, G. (2007). Tidal current resource

assessment. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal

of Power and Energy, 221(2), 125-135.

Cormier, R, Kannen, A., Elliott, M., Hall, P., Davies, I.M. (2013). Marine and coastal

ecosystem-based risk management handbook. ICES Cooperative Research Report,

No. 317. 60 pp.

Cormier, R., Kannen, A., Elliott, M., & Hall, P. (2015). Marine Spatial Planning

Quality Management System. ICES Cooperative Research Report, No. 327. 106 pp.

Davies, I. M., Gubbins, M., & Watret, R. (2012). Scoping study for tidal stream

energy development in Scottish waters. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science,

Vol.3, No 1, 38pp.

Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing

ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine policy, 32(5), 762-771.

Douvere, F., & Ehler, C. N. (2009). New perspectives on sea use management:

initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of

environmental management, 90(1), 77-88.

Ehler, C., Douvere, F. (2007). Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First

International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual

and Guides No. 48, IOCAM Dossier (pdf, 3.01 MB) No. 4. Paris, UNESCO.

109

Ehler, C., Douvere, F., & Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

(2009). Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based-

management. UNESCO.

Elliott, M. (2013). The 10-tenets for integrated, successful and sustainable marine

management. Marine pollution bulletin, 74(1), 1.

EMEC. (2016). Grid-connected tidal test sites. Retrieved from

http://www.emec.org.uk/facilities/tidal-test-site/

Esteban, M., & Leary, D. (2012). Current developments and future prospects of

offshore wind and ocean energy. Applied Energy, 90(1), 128-136.

European Union (EU). (2012). Blue Growth opportunities for marine and maritime

sustainable growth. Communication from the commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee on the Regions. COM(2012) 494 final.

Foley, M. M., Halpern, B. S., Micheli, F., Armsby, M. H., Caldwell, M. R., Crain, C.

M., Prahler, E., Rohr, N., Sivas, D., Beck, M. W., Carr, M. H., Crowder, L. B., Duffy,

E. J., Hacker, S. D., McLeod, K. L., Palumbi, S. R., Peterson, C. H., Regan, H. M.,

Ruckelshaus, M. H., Sandifer, P. A., & Steneck, R. S. (2010). Guiding ecological

principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34(5), 955-966.

Fraenkel, P. L. (2002). Power from marine currents. Proceedings of the Institution of

Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 216(1), 1-14.

Fraenkel, P. L. (2006). Tidal current energy technologies. Ibis, 148(s1), 145-151.

Hoyle, D. (2011). Process management principles. In ISO 9000 Quality Systems

Handbook: Using the standards as a framework for business improvement. pp. 157-

158. 6th Edition. Routledge, New York. ISBN 978-1-8561-7684-2. 802 pp.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C.,

Bruno, J., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan,

H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., Watson, R.,

(2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science, 319(5865),

948-952.

ICES. (2012). Joint DFO/KnowSeas, and ICES Workshop on Quality management in

110

MSP (WKQAMSP), 28 February– 1 March 2012, Dartmouth, Canada. ICES CM

2012/SSGHIE:02. 48 pp.

ISO. (2005). Quality management systems-Fundamentals and vocabulary.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9000:2005(E).

ISO. (2009). Risk Management Principles and Guidelines. International Organization

for Standardization. ISO 31000:2009(E).

Johnson, K., Kerr, S., & Side, J. (2012). Accommodating wave and tidal energy–

Control and decision in Scotland. Ocean & coastal management, 65, 26-33.

Kerr, D. (2007). Marine energy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 365(1853), 971-992.

Lester, S. E., Costello, C., Halpern, B. S., Gaines, S. D., White, C., & Barth, J. A.

(2013). Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial

planning. Marine Policy, 38, 80-89.

Marine Scotland (UK). (2013a). Planning Scotland’s seas: Sectoral marine plans for

offshore wind, wave, and tidal energy in Scottish waters consultation

draft. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/07/8702

Marine Scotland (UK). (2013b). Planning Scotland’s seas: Sustainability appraisal for

sectoral plans for offshore renewable energy in Scottish

waters. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/07/2403

Marine Scotland (UK). (2014). Scotland's national marine plan. Marine Scotland,

Edinburgh(UK).

Marine Scotland (UK). (2015a). Planning Scotland’s seas: Developing the socio-

economic evidence base for offshore renewable sectoral marine plans in Scottish

waters; Final report. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/07/5841

Marine Scotland (UK). (2015b). Planning Scotland’s seas: Habitats regulations

appraisal of the sectoral marine plans for offshore renewable energy in Scottish

waters; Draft summary

report. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marineenergy/Planning/drafthra

111

Marine Scotland (UK). (2015c). Planning Scotland’s seas: SEA of plans for wind,

wave, and tidal power in Scottish marine waters; Environmental

report. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/07/2403

Marine Scotland Science staff. (2016a). Interview, June 10, 2016

Marine Scotland Science staff. (2016b). Interview, June 14, 2016

Marine Scotland Science staff. (2016c). Interview, June 23, 2016

MeyGen. (2016). Retrieved from www.meygen.com

Myers, L. E., Keogh, B., & Bahaj, A. S. (2011, September). Layout optimisation of 1st

generation tidal energy arrays. In Proc. of 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy

Conference.

OSPAR. 2010. Quality Status Report 2010: Regional Summaries. No. 154. OSPAR

Commission. London. 176pp.

O’Rourke, F., Boyle, F., & Reynolds, A. (2010). Tidal energy update 2009. Applied

Energy, 87(2), 398-409.

Pelc, R., & Fujita, R. M. (2002). Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy,

26(6), 471-479.

Pendleton, L., Atiyah, P., & Moorthy, A. (2007). Is the non-market literature adequate

to support coastal and marine management?. Ocean & Coastal Management, 50(5),

363-378.

Professional Standards Board PSB. (2016). Why professional certification?

Retrieved from http://www.psbplanningcanada.ca/STUDENTS/certification.php

Rice, J., Trujillo, V., Jennings, S., Hylland, K., Hagstrom, O., Astudillo, A., and

Nørrevang-Jensen, J. 2005. Guidance on the Application of the Ecosystem

Approach to Management of Human Activities in the European Marine Environment,

ICES Cooperative Research Report, No. 273. 22 pp.

112

Sardà, R., Diedrich, A., Tintoré, J., Pablo Lozoya, J., Cormier, R., Hardy, M. and

Ouellette, M. (2010). Decision Making (DEMA) tool and demonstration. KnowSeas.

Deliverable 6.2 Development of Risk Assessment. European Community’s Seventh

Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement number 226675.

Sardà, R., O'Higgins, T., Cormier, R., Diedrich, A., and Tintoré, J. (2014). A

proposed ecosystem-based management system for marine waters: linking the

theory of environmental policy to the practice of environmental management.

Ecology and Society, 19(4): 51.

Schultz-Zehden, A., Gee, K., & Scibior, K. (2008). Handbook on Integrated Maritime

Spatial Planning. INTERREG III B CADSES PlanCoast Project.

Tarbotton, M., & Larson, M. (2006). Canada ocean energy atlas (phase 1) potential

tidal current energy resources analysis background. Report to Canadian Hydraulics

Centre.

The Crown Estate, (2012). UK Wave and Tidal Key Resource areas project–

Summary report.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5478/uk-wave-and-tidal-key-resource-areas-

technological-report.pdf

UN Atlas of the Oceans. (2010). Human settlements on the coast. Retrieved from

http://www.oceansatlas.org/servlet/CDSServlet

World Resources Institute. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment. Summary for

decision-makers, 2005.

113

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ALARP As low as reasonably practicable

BAT Best available techniques

CA Competent authority

EEZ Exclusive economic zone

EA Environmental assessment

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMEC European Marine Energy Centre

GHG Greenhouse gas

GVA gross added value

GW Gigawatt

HRA Habitat regulations appraisal

HS Historic Scotland

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

IPF Initial plan framework

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Km2 Kilometers squared

MPA Marine protected area

MS Marine Scotland

MSF Marine Strategy Forum

MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive

MSP Marine spatial planning

MW Megawatt

M/s Meters per second

NM Nautical mile

NMP National marine plan

NMPi National marine plan interactive

PV Present value

P1 Consistency of purpose

P2 Clarity of purpose

P3 Connectivity with objectives

P4 Competence and capability

P5 Certainty of results

P6 Conformity to best practices

P7 Clear line of sight

QOP Quality objectives of the plan

QMC Quality management checklist

QMO Quality management objectives

QMP Quality management programme

114

QMS Quality management system

RLG Regional locational guidance

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

R&D Research and development

SAC Special area of conservation

SEA Strategic environmental assessment

SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

SG Scottish Government

SMART Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound

SMP Sectoral marine plan

SMPTE Sectoral marine plan for tidal energy

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

SPA Special protected area

SPRG Sectoral plan review group

TCT Tidal current turbine

TWh/yr Terawatt hours per year

TZ Territorial zone

T1 Environmentally/ecologically sustainable

T2 Technologically feasible

T3 Economically viable

T4 Socially desirable/tolerable

T5 Legally permissible

T6 Administratively achievable

T7 Politically expedient

T8 Ethically defensible

T9 Culturally inclusive

T10 Effectively communicable

WKQAMSP Workshop on Quality Management of MSP Processes